General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday the Local Government and Environment Committee reported on its inquiry into the so-called “corngate” incident. Although our language was polite, it was, in fact, a damning report on the actions—or, rather, the inactions—of Government officials responsible for our biosecurity. In 2000 we had a 4-year-old law that prohibited the import of GE seed, but that had absolutely no monitoring or enforcement, no testing at the border, and no declarations required—“Do not look, do not see, do not know.”

The first people to suspect that that might be the case and to try to remedy it was the Green Party. In October 2000 I asked two written questions of the Minister that provided the information that no testing was done, and that the Government thought we could just leave it to importers and the market. We also raised the subject the same week in our evidence to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Shortly afterwards we learnt that the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry discussed seeking funding for doing something about that—in a very non-urgent way—but by the time they had that discussion, the “corngate” seed was already in the country. It is not the first time the Green Party has led the way and been shown to be right. We have been saying for years that GE crops and animals would damage our markets and destroy a major economic advantage, but the Government placed its hopes on the knowledge economy in agricultural biotech, and let us look at where that is now.

The agricultural biotech industry has lost $40 billion on the US stock market, mainly because consumers have not “got over it”, as the US predicted, and accepted GE foods. Some medical biotech is doing quite well. Those companies are using smart technology, whereby no plant or animal needs to be released into the environment—New Zealand’s own BLIS Technologies, for example. But, worldwide, the GE food industry is in disarray. Monsanto has withdrawn all its applications to market its GE wheat, because no one wants it. Bayer and Syngenta have withdrawn from the UK. Monsanto has given up its plans to grow GE canola in Australia. PPL Therapeutics, which in New Zealand had a flock of 4,000 sheep expressing human proteins in their milk, has gone bust, and all the sheep have been destroyed. The European Union has lifted its moratorium under dire threats from the US, but no one wants to grow anything there, because the supermarkets will not stock it and consumers will not buy it. Company after company is falling over. The New Zealand Life Sciences Network no longer has funds to employ a public relations person, because it does not get enough subscriptions.

It was the Green Party campaign in 1998 and 1999 and the 92,000 signatures on my petition that led to a public demand for a moratorium, while a royal commission debated the issues. The first application for the release of a GE crop, canola, was imminent in 1999, but was withdrawn at the last minute. Since then, information about the risks of GE, and market resistance to it, have accumulated. Every week there is a new story about unpredicted pollen spread, contamination of crops, and worrying health effects on test animals.

A year ago next week the 4-year moratorium on the release of GE organisms was lifted, but there has been no release. There has been no application for release. There has been no suggestion anyone can find that there are any proposals in the pipeline. Biosecurity protocols and border testing are in place, and inadvertent contamination is under better control. I sincerely hope the Government will act on the committee’s unanimous recommendation and make Government access to all laboratory data and records a condition of approval for importing seeds, so that Parliament can never again be stymied in its quest for the truth by a transnational company that just thumbs its nose at the New Zealand Parliament.

Clearly, the Government could easily have agreed to our request at the last election and extended the moratorium for another 3 years, and then had our support for this term. But that is now history, and we need to look at the future. New Zealand is still, essentially, GE free, but protecting this global market advantage is no longer under the Government’s control. Anyone who wants to damage our economic advantage can apply for approval to release a GE crop and may get Environmental Risk Management Authority approval.

When Parliament resumes, we have another chance to say clearly that this is not a country that wants to grow GE in the outdoors. Ian Ewen-Street’s member’s bill to reinstate the moratorium just to 2008 will be debated in the House in 3 weeks. I hope members will listen and take that chance.

The report on “corngate” had a number of points that were agreed by all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and they should be put on record. Firstly, no evidence at all was found of a cover-up. That was a politically motivated jack-up a couple of weeks before an election. Secondly, it was not proven in that report that there was GM contamination, and, thirdly, it was agreed that the original tests were invalid and should have been disregarded. That is all that needs to be said about that particular issue. I want to encourage the House, instead of the Opposition today doing their normal whingeing and whining about how bad things are, to acknowledge the fact that this country is heading in the right direction—that this country is moving ahead.

Last Friday, a poll in the National Business Review showed, by the biggest margin in recent years—by more than 2:1; 64 percent to 29 percent—that New Zealanders believe this country is on the right track. Practically two-thirds of New Zealanders believe this Government is taking the country in the right direction. The next day we had a Herald-DigiPoll. What did that show? It showed that Aucklanders, by 13 percentage points, put Labour ahead of the discredited and failing National Opposition. That was 13 percentage points in a region that covers nearly one-third of our country.

Those polls together show that across the wider community, New Zealanders believe this country is competently led by a party that is capable, consistent, energetic, creative, fair, and inclusive. On every one of those adjectives, we can contrast the performance of this party with that failed bunch of people opposite us who are sitting on the National Party benches. Why would New Zealanders not feel confident about this country? Unemployment is at a 17-year low—the best result in the OECD but for Korea—and is falling. The rate of unemployment has halved for our young people.

Never have our young people had the opportunities to participate in our society in the way they have today. Never have they had the investment made in education, in training, in apprenticeships. There is a chance for our families to improve their living standards in order to look for a better future, and they know that they are backed by this party, which is in touch with ordinary New Zealanders and has given a decent boost, for the first time in years, to working people struggling to get ahead—people on modest incomes, who will be the major beneficiaries of those Budget moves. The growth in this country is 4.4 percent. This country leads the developed world in terms of the growth it has achieved.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rubbish!

The member can say “Rubbish!” all he likes, it is a statistical fact that New Zealand is outperforming the United States, the whole of Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and any other country in the developed world that that member wants to talk about. We are investing the proceeds of that growth into a better health system than we have ever had, and we are investing it in providing superannuation for the future—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Humbug!

—something that member failed to do when he had the chance—and bringing our debt down. We have halved the net debt of this country, from 20 percent of GDP to 10 percent. There is only one thing falling faster than our debt, and that is our crime rate, which is down 13.8 percent—the best record by police ever in terms of resolving our crime rate. More crime is being resolved, we have tougher legislation and better resourcing for policing, and more criminals are being put away than at any time during this country’s history.

Members should look at what is happening to business and agriculture. They are booming. Last month, this country topped a World Bank survey of 145 different countries as the best country in the world in which to run a business, ahead of the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, and all the other countries. Meanwhile, there those members go, continuing to whine and grizzle. No wonder! Look at the National Party members! They had their heads in their hands after Don Brash spoke yesterday. Look at what he got from the weekend: “Brash blunder over help for Act”, “Brash in troubled waters”—that man is failing and that party has failed.

That was the angry young man of the Labour Party, the Minister of Justice—the man who presides over a justice system that has led this country to the point whereby if one rings 111, one gets a taxi.

I want to respond to the challenge he laid out before us. The National Party thinks this is a great country and has confidence in the business sector. It does believe that New Zealanders are innovative, creative, and capable of growing the economy. The National Party knows that what New Zealanders prize above all else is a Government free from corruption. That is what is right at the heart of the issues surrounding John Tamihere.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot accuse a member of corruption. The member will withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] I remind the whip that I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. When I am ruling on a point of order there will be silence. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You have made a mistake, Madam Speaker, and I want to point out why. The member said that the National Party knows that what the country wants best is a country free of corruption. Which part of that did he personalise, or, for that matter, collectivise in respect of the Labour Party?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker, as I am sure you heard—and maybe the member was momentarily distracted—the member then went on in the next sentence to associate John Tamihere with those comments.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. The member—[Interruption] Please be silent while I am ruling. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. It does not matter what the nice conventions of Parliament might be, New Zealanders are asking themselves what the issue is about John Tamihere. What are the questions raised about a payment made to him, and the claim by the chairman of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust that it was made to him in the expectation that he would “do things for them”? I know I cannot say the word that should describe that sort of activity, but New Zealanders will draw their own conclusions.

I want to know when John Tamihere will stand up in the House and defend himself. When will John Tamihere come to this House, the highest court in the land, lay out the evidence that blows these charges out of the water, and get on with life? I make the prediction that he will never do that, because he cannot. This is a man who has gone around the countryside talking to young people in particular, and proclaiming the need for him and his colleagues to show leadership, aspiration, and a direction towards the future. At the same time as he has been trying to act in that magnanimous way, we know that he has been creeping around the back doors of his previous employer and trying to drag out a huge payment in order to do great things in Parliament for the Waipareira Trust.

The Waipareira Trust sold assets to pay out John Tamihere. This is an organisation set up to help some of the most depressed people in this country, and it had to hock its assets to give its former chief executive a big payment so that he could come to Parliament and do more things for it. If the unusable word that Mr Mallard has taken such exception to cannot be applied to Mr Tamihere in the House, let me assure members that it will be applied by many others outside the House.

As long as Helen Clark supports John Tamihere, the allegations swirling around him will be laid at her feet as well. This is a Prime Minister who will arrive back in the country later this week, fresh from the “Lady Di” experience on the seat in front of the Taj Mahal. She will try to say that she is still the leader of a Government that is full of integrity, that sets the highest standards, and that demands absolute purity from all its Ministers. As long as Helen Clark takes that line she will be damaging herself, her Government, and this country as well.

Members opposite make a big noise and say that this is wrong. They stand up and say it is OK for Mr Tamihere to go out to the public and say: “I will not take a gratuitous payment.”, then spend 3 years making sure that he gets it, spend 2 years sitting on top of it without having paid the tax on it, and file several ministerial accountability forms without making that disclosure. Helen Clark said: “It’s all OK.” Well, people will make up their own minds about that. The moral mandate for the Labour Party to say that they are there for the poor, for the oppressed, and for those who are suffering hard times in New Zealand, has gone. As long as John Tamihere remains in the Labour Party ranks, Labour members’ ability to speak on behalf of the downtrodden in this country has gone, because everyone will know, and everyone will ask the question: “How much has he been paid to do this?”.

I am going to disagree with my colleague the senior Government whip and say that yesterday the Opposition was looking for leadership in the debate. Today we have the sort of speech that the Opposition should have had yesterday. Is it not sad that the failed woodwork teacher from Fendalton gives a better speech than the current Leader of the Opposition? He gave a better speech, not a great speech, not a wonderful speech, but a significantly better speech than that from Don Brash.

I have not been around here as long as Richard Prebble, but I do not think I have ever seen such a high proportion of members of the National Party sitting in the House with their heads in their hands, as I saw yesterday, while Don Brash was speaking. I have never seen so many unhappy people. They had what was effectively a free hit. The right honourable gentleman from Tauranga got some hits in—he got some punches in. Again, he was not absolutely brilliant, but I am sure with a bit more experience he will do better. What was clear was that Don just did not have it yesterday, and even he knew it. I had never seen someone slink out of the Chamber in such an embarrassed manner. He almost crawled, to avoid looking into the eyes of any of his colleagues as he left. We could tell he was heading for the lobby to get his hanky out to cry like the poor little kid who could not do the assignment when he was at school.

We all know now—I think most people know; and other people will find out tonight—that the National Party is not quite on to the thing that they thought they were on to. National members are not quite on to what they thought they were on to, and they are in even bigger trouble than they thought they were a few days ago. Why? It is because they do not have a leader. Generally I do not quote the New Zealand Herald, because it does not always get it right, but I think Emmerson got it right on 15 October in his cartoon: “The Don Brash record to date”—

💬 John Key: No one is listening.

I agree with John Key when he said that no one is listening to Don Brash. He goes to knock on the door in the evening and the lights go out and the shutters are closed. The people inside do not want to know about Don Brash. Why?

💬 Darren Hughes: Which house?

It is one of John Key’s several mansions actually, when Don comes calling. The Emmerson cartoon stated: “The Don Brash record to date … click! fear, doom, gloom, click! fear, doom, gloom, click!”. That sums up Don. The only answer that is left is—[Interruption] The member is right—the answer to the question is not hard, because he is the answer. John Key is the answer. We have seen the preparation occurring, and we have seen the way that the media is being escorted around the country in order to see where that member grew up. We can see where he lives now, we can see the contrast, and we can see the soft spreads that he is paying for around the country in order to build his own profile.

We have seen it before. I remember when Glenda Hughes did a lot of work for Bill and Mary English. They had a lot of soft publicity around the time, but it did not work. The member should tell John Key that it does not work. But it did not stop the member from becoming the leader. When we look along the front bench there is no one there who can do the job, other than Winston Peters.

All I can say to that member today is that I would much rather have Don Brash’s reputation for integrity than John Tamihere’s reputation. Is it not telling when Labour’s hard man tactical operator has nothing to say on the issue of the day, which is John Tamihere. I was expecting at least a stout defence, and probably new evidence that would help buttress John Tamihere’s case, but he barely rated a mention in Trevor Mallard’s speech, and I will tell the members why. It is because the Government does not know what to do about this problem. “Mother Hen” Helen Clark has flown the coop and she has left Dr Cullen running around like a headless chook—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise. The member knows that he must refer to members by their correct names.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are very concerned that the Minister of Education, the Hon Trevor Mallard, appears to be instructing the Chair. We would like an assurance, and I think we are entitled to that, that the Chair is not taking instruction from Government Ministers.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is certainly not correct. It is my responsibility when I hear a member being referred to in that way—and this often happens in the House; it happened yesterday, and it will continue to happen—to call the member to order.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder why you did not use the same hearing to pull up Mr Mallard for his referring to a member in an inappropriate way throughout his speech. He used a Christian name only. You certainly heard that, but you chose to take no action at all. You appeared to be taking no action on this speech, when a Christian name was used, until Mr Mallard interjected. All that we ask for is fairness.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am advised by my whips that when I was referring to the Leader of the Opposition I called him Don. I apologise. I of course was referring to Dr Brash.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Often members will refer to members by their Christian names—that is not uncommon—but what I was correcting the member for was the use of a derogatory term when referring to the member. I tell Mr Sowry that that will always be corrected.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may help to clarify matters if you simply require members of the Government to stand and take a point of order, as set down in the Standing Orders, just like Opposition MPs must do, rather than just taking instructions that are interjected on you beside you.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member is totally incorrect. As I have ruled previously, it is my responsibility to do that if I hear it.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will warn the member once that that was not a point of order. As I have said, raising trifling points of order is, of itself, disorderly.

💬 Rodney Hide: It was a point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are actually dealing with a serious point about taking direction. I am not accusing you of that, what I am saying is that it would be helpful if you instructed Mr Mallard on the proper way to raise a point of order. This is a point of order because it is in the Standing Orders. You should simply require Trevor Mallard to stand and call “Point of order” rather than have him interject on you and give the appearance, which I do not accept, that you are taking instructions.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s not a point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: Here we go. That is the point. If we call out on a point of order we get thrown out. The chief whip can say what she likes and you do nothing, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the point.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has not raised a point of order.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the chief Government whip going to be dealt with for interjecting on Mr Hide?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hide was going on with a point of order that was not a point of order and I had already—

💬 Rodney Hide: So what!

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had already ruled on the point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: So what!

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hide will stand, withdraw, and apologise for those—

💬 Rodney Hide: Why do I have to?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: —remarks to the Chair.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How come I have to withdraw and apologise when I interject, but the junior whip—what is that woman now—

💬 Simon Power: She’s senior whip.

💬 Rodney Hide: —the senior whip can stand there yelling out on a point of order and it is OK because you deem it not to be a point of order. There is no ability for the chief whip to call out on a point of order and for the Speaker to defend her. She has to withdraw and apologise, just like you required of me.

💬 Darren Hughes: First, the reason that the member was asked to withdraw and apologise was that he was interjecting on you as the presiding officer in the Chamber. The second thing is that the Opposition’s insistence on observing the Standing Orders this afternoon might be better helped if Mr Hide spoke from a chair allocated to his party, as opposed to speaking from the National Party front bench, which is against the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member should read the Standing Orders. A member can take a point of order from anywhere in the Chamber. He should read the Standing Orders.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When a point of order is taken it must be heard in silence. Whether it is valid is to be determined later by the Speaker or yourself as the Deputy Speaker. But whatever is happening, it is required that the point of order be heard in silence and anyone who shouts out, intervenes, or interjects is outside the Standing Orders and should be asked to withdraw and apologise. That is the point that is being made on this side of the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the member is relatively correct in what he says. Notwithstanding the fact that all members in this House with some experience had come to the conclusion that Mr Hide was not raising a point of order—

💬 Rodney Hide: This isn’t a point of order, either.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give one further warning about interrupting while a member has the floor correctly on points of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In agreeing substantially with the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it is my view that we would have a degree of disorder in the House if members continually anticipated your rulings on points raised that it is clear to members are not points of order, but on which you have not yet ruled. I think it would be useful for order in the House if the practice were to cease.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters is correct. I ask the senior Government whip whether she interjected during the point of order.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.

Helen Clark has flown the coop and left Dr Cullen flailing around like a headless chook. He cannot decide what to do about the Tamihere allegations. First he tried throwing mud, but that has looked weak and indecisive. Then he has tried to occasionally defend the allegations by demonstrating a pretty intimate knowledge of them for someone who is not the QC doing the inquiry. Then he has toyed with the idea of just saying: “Let’s refer everything to the inquiry and when the evidence comes out that is when we will decide.” Then he said: “It’s a political decision. It’s not a matter for the QC and the inquiry at all. It will be a political decision.” He cannot decide. The great management machine in the Beehive has rattled itself to bits, and the reason is that what happens to John Tamihere is critical to the cohesion of this Government.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Wait until 6 o’clock.

That member seems to think that this is a matter of popularity; that somehow if John Tamihere is popular he is therefore exempt from scrutiny. The problem is that that is what John Tamihere believed—that because he was popular he did not have to fill out his electoral return properly in the same way that we have to; that because he is popular he does not have to declare gifts that may have been made to him as a Minister; and that because he is popular it does not matter if he defies the Government’s promise that it will get rid of golden handshakes and takes one.

Let me sum up this issue very clearly for the Government. This is a man who made himself popular by going around New Zealand telling everybody that too many Māori had their fingers in the till. It turned out that he had his fingers in the till. That is the nub of it. There is really nothing more complicated than that. How many tills and how many fingers is yet to be decided, but absolutely no one has denied that he took a very large payment. All they have argued about is whether the tax was paid. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue Department. The fact is that he kept saying that too many traditional Māori have their fingers in the till, when at the same time he had his fingers in the till.

The fact that Trevor Mallard could not even mention it tells us how deeply in trouble not just John Tamihere is, but the Government is. The Government has the Māori Party knocking at the door very hard. It has seabed and foreshore legislation that it has said it will resolve by Christmas, but it does not have a dog’s show. Now it has just lost the one person whom it believed could have sold that legislation to Māori and Pākehā, regardless of what it actually said. That is why today the Government is trying to decide whether to hang on to him or hang him. It is trying to decide, as we speak: “Do we hang on to John Tamihere or do we hang him?”. That is where the inquiry will turn out to be a mistake, because Helen Clark—the wonderful, decisive Prime Minister with standards that I would be absolutely ashamed of, whatever the nation thinks of them—will now twist in the wind for 6 weeks. Why can she not decide now? Why can John Tamihere not just give her the information—the electoral return, the bank statement—and she can just decide? But she will not.

The Hon Bill English, who has just resumed his seat, got the complete wrong end of the stick, like the rest of his party. They believe that we should be convicting people before they have a trial. However, it must be said that the Hon Bill English certainly leaves his leader, Dr Don Brash, in the dark when it comes to speeches in this House.

I think that the Hon Bill English must be secretly smiling over some of the headlines we have seen lately. The New Zealand Herald stated: “Brash blunder over help for ACT”. The Sunday Star-Times stated: “Do nothing National delays peak”. Other headlines state: “Brash in troubled waters”, “Bumbling Brash loses plot”, and “Home or away, Brash is losing”. I think that, in secret, Bill English is planning his return. He has had time to regroup and he is coming back.

The National Party is used to being overshadowed. It is certainly not the first time that it has been overshadowed. It has been overshadowed by New Zealand First for a long time, since it decided to adopt all New Zealand First’s policies and take them as its own. But the reality is that New Zealand First deals with law and order and treaty issues much better than the National Party ever has or ever will. Why? It is because the National Party has no credibility on those issues. The Hon Phil Goff had to fix and toughen up “Tough on Sentencing” Tony Ryall’s sentencing and parole laws. Why? Under Tony Ryall’s sentencing law there was automatic release—[Interruption] Members opposite do not like it, because they know that if they ever get back into Government they will not do anything else. It would be just like the last time when they promised they would get tough on crime. Did they do it? No. It is typical of the National Party members. They promise, promise, get into Government, and do nothing.

Under Tony Ryall’s sentencing laws, release was automatic at two-thirds of a sentence. Under the laws of this Labour Government, put in place by the Hon Phil Goff, a criminal can be kept in jail until the last day of his or her sentence. Under Tony Ryall’s law, preventive detention was available only on a person’s second offence. A criminal got the first one free under National, and they defended that. Under this Government, preventive detention is available for the worst criminals on the first crime.

On treaty issues the National Party made such a hash of the Lake Taupō deal that all the local tourism operators there now do not know whether they are coming or going because they do not know who owns the airspace above the lake. Yet those National members have the gall to stand in this House and criticise the work that this Government is doing on the Rotorua lakes deal with Te Arawa. They have the absolute gall to stand up and criticise what this Government is doing in ensuring that the water column and the airspace remain in the hands of the Government.

But that is the key point about the National Party. There is no consistency because there can be no consistency where there are no principles. We in the Labour Government have always said that the National Party has no principles, because the only thing it cares about is power and getting it. That is the only thing National members have ever cared about, and it is the only thing they will continue to care about. National members snuggle up to the ACT party, which, I have been informed today, in a public session of a select committee confirmed that it has no problem with foreign ownership of the foreshore and the seabed—no problem at all. Well, that is probably something that New Zealanders need to know.

💬 Darren Hughes: The 1 percent party!

The 1 percent party, but New Zealanders need to know that ACT, National, and Dr Brash are completely politically in sync. They agree with each other. This explains why all the political casualties from Dr Don Brash are from his own party. Lynda Scott and Roger Sowry are heading for the hills. And then there is poor Dr Paul Hutchison. It says something about a party when it chooses a lawyer rather than a doctor as its health spokesperson. Clem Simich was shafted by his own party, and now Mr Peachey, who has been selected as the Tamaki candidate, has to read headlines in the paper where Dr Brash states: “At this point, if ACT was sitting on 4.9 percent, who knows, we might do a deal.” He says that they might do a deal in Tamaki or in Epsom. That leads me to Richard Worth. He is in the same boat as Mr Peachey and Clem Simich—at the whim of a deal done by his own leader to sacrifice him for the ACT party.

Of course, the biggest casualty was the Hon Bill English. He was rolled as leader after months of denying that that would happen. Dr Brash thought he was ineffective and that he was not doing the job properly. He said: “I confess to being guilty of being critical of my predecessor, because although I was No. 3 in his caucus, I didn’t have much substantive contact with Bill, and I was critical of that.” Well, now he knows the harsh reality. Now he knows that it is not all peaches and cream being leader of a major party.

Well at last, a little touch of sanity. I have to tell this House that rather than worrying about National, Labour needs to begin worrying seriously about New Zealand First. Because, as that member just said, New Zealand First is the law and order party. On that note I have some comments from New Zealand First for the Prime Minister. Every cloud has a silver lining, and the possibility that she may have to sack John Tamihere actually does give her an advantage. That advantage is that John Tamihere, having said that he would quit if George Hawkins was fired, will be gone. That will leave the Prime Minister free to do the one job she knows she has to do—sack the Minister of Police, George Hawkins.

Why does she need to do that? Well, I will tell the House why she needs to do that. This man, Mr Hawkins, came to this House after 9 years of bashing his gums on this side of the House, telling the country what he was going to do. He was going to wipe out gangs. What do we see now? The gangs currently, under his stewardship, run a $400 million - plus methamphetamine operation. Have they been wiped out? Not on your nelly! They are thriving. This man said that crime levels were too high and they were going to get them down. Well, the Minister brags and boasts about his doctored statistics—and we all know what statistics are. “Lies, damned lies and statistics” is the quote that is often given. The best quote came from the New Zealand Herald, on 30 August: “To read statistics that say crime has dropped is a crock of garbage. People can’t be bothered to report thefts and burglaries—I know I don’t any more, because nothing happens.”

That is the testimony to this Minister’s stewardship as Minister of Police. He said he would make the streets safer. Well, we all know they are not safer, because when one rings 111, one does not get a boy in blue, one gets a Blue Star taxi. That is this Minister’s solution to the public calling for help. Do not worry about the police. He has suddenly trebled the size of the police force by bringing the whole taxi industry into the blue uniforms, and for that the public gives him no credit and no thanks.

I turn to satisfaction with crime-related responses. Well, the verdicts are out, and currently responses to 111 calls have dropped. They are down at 67 percent. That Minister said today that I told an untruth. I recounted a situation of traffic patrols that are not responding. They are sitting silent on their radios, and not responding to dispatchers who want to send them on calls. The Minister says that that is not happening. Well, I tell this Minister that if he would care to talk to a policeman, care to talk to a dispatcher, and care to talk to a call-taker he would find that what I said is the exact truth. Worst of all, there is writing to that effect. There are reports to that effect, which have gone to the Minister’s headquarters—they have gone to the Commissioner of Police. The Minister quite clearly, because he keeps a hands-off approach to everything, does not know what is going on. That is why the Minister should be sacked.

Let us look at something else. Helen Clark told the House that we would see a new age of accountability. How interesting is that? At a time of “inquiryitis” I would say, when this Government is announcing inquiries left, right, and centre, we have yet to hear the “hands-off Minister”, George Hawkins, announce an inquiry into the Shaw-Edwards-McNee case. The Minister said that a violent crime occurred. I tell the Minister that the file says there was no real violent and horrendous crime. What it does say is that Mr Shaw lied. It also says that 15 police officers were involved for hours and months and months, investigating things that Mr Shaw lied about. He never ever said that he knew his assailant. He never ever said anything about having had his assailant in his house before. This Minister now knows all this. He knows that Mr Shaw should have been prosecuted for wasting police time, and he sits there and does nothing.

I find it absolutely incredible, at a time when the Commissioner of Police has had a $70,000 pay rise, and at a time when the Minister has had his job reinstated because John Tamihere was going to resign if he got fired, that he sits there, hands-off, letting the police go rampant. Who pays? It is the general duties officers, and the bobbies in the incident cars, and the public who pay. They have had a gutsful of this Minister. I tell Helen Clark that they want him gone.

The speaker before last, Bill English, pointed to the integrity of Dr Don Brash. It is interesting that the last leader of the National Party set up the former leader in that way. Let us recall that just a matter of 2 years’ ago Dr Don Brash was taking a salary from the Government of close to half a million dollars per annum whilst he was planning to move across to the National Party as soon as he secured a promise of a good place on the list. The cost to taxpayers of that duplicitous period in his career was—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that remark, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. The cost to taxpayers—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This member is making an allegation against Dr Brash that is completely unreasonable. I would ask how many schoolteachers, for example, there are in the Labour Party who collected salaries up to the time when they were required to file writs prior to the last election, or any other election for that matter. How many others were senior civil servants? If the member wants a witch-hunt, then we are quite happy to go down that line. The reality is that Parliament at the moment is considering the issues that surround John Tamihere. It is not Parliament that has stood him down; it is the Government. The issues that surround him do not involve taxpayers’ money; they involve trust funds held for some of the poorest New Zealanders being paid out to Mr Tamihere, supposedly so that he can come to Parliament and do greater things for them.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is covering debating material. There have been a lot of attacks on members this afternoon, but I remind members they cannot impute dishonesty or corruption.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a matter I would like you to rule on. You ruled, quite properly in my opinion, that Mr Parker should withdraw and apologise. Following that, there was a speech that did not appear to be related to any Standing Order. I am not sure whether it was a point of order. Can we have a ruling from you as to whether that irrelevant contribution, which was not on a point of order, counts as a National Party speech?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I reminded the member that what he was saying was a debating issue. However, he did raise the matter of attacks on members—that was covered. I had ruled on what the member said, so there was actually no point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I have an assurance that this last 2-minute interruption will not come off my time?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

The cost to the taxpayer was $30,000 to $40,000 per month. I move to Mr Brownlee.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You cannot expect the House to accept that, your having ruled that it is inappropriate for a speaker to speak in derogatory terms about a member or an action of a member, that speaker then simply stands up and resumes his speech.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not what I ruled, at all.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: My understanding is that your ruling was to do with the word “duplicitous”, which is clearly something that has been ruled out in the past. The fact that a current member of Parliament drew a salary in the manner referred to is a matter of record, just like it is a matter of record, if people want to dig into it, that some members of the Labour Party lost 3 months’ pay when they became members of Parliament.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is a debating matter.

On the subject of debate on the relative integrity of front-benchers, that member was involved in an assault incident, and the person who sits next to him was convicted of contempt of court. The point I would like to make is that we should view the seriousness or otherwise of these incidents, based on the evidence.

A recent occurrence that has been reported back to this Parliament by a select committee indicates why we should wait for the evidence. It relates to the GE corn inquiry. The allegations were based on the book Seeds of Distrust: The Story of a GE Cover-up. The back pages accuse the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Government of having orchestrated a cover-up. The report has now come back. The unanimous conclusions of the committee include, and I quote from the report: “We have seen no evidence that Ministers took the scientific decision about whether or not the crop was contaminated with genetically modified seed.” Another unanimous conclusion states: “We have found no evidence in the papers, nor in the testimony given by officials and Ministers, that the officials were acting under ministerial instruction when they took the decisions they did.” The underlying assertion of ministerial interference was not made out. It is important to wait for the evidence, because when the evidence is properly and justly considered, sometimes the allegations are not made out.

In terms of the GE corn inquiry, one of the other assertions was that it was known by the Government, and that it was proven, that the crop was genetically modified. Another unanimous conclusion is that, even with the benefit of hindsight, it is not proven that it was a GE crop. What is the very narrow criticism, compared with the original criticism? Well, notwithstanding that the original Crop and Food Research tests that caused the scare were invalid—and there is unanimity that those tests were invalid and should have been disregarded—notwithstanding that 10 other tests were clear and showed negative test results, and notwithstanding that, by then, over 30,000 seeds had been tested and cleared, compared with the 3,200 that are required to be tested now, an accusation has been made that a tolerance level was applied by the officials at the time, and that they did so in breach of the law.

Well, that is one view of the evidence that has been promoted by National and Green members, but it is notable that the independent expert that the committee employed thought otherwise. Dr Nick Smith asked Dr Taylor, a scientist with international expertise in biosecurity matters, an independent expert, whether he believed that a tolerance level had been applied: “Dr Taylor replied that his opinion of the evidence was that Richard Ivess took the decision and that he tolerated the risk inherent in the sampling regime, but did not make his decision based on tolerating a level of detected GM contamination.” What was the National Party and Green response to that? They tried to suppress it from the record. The minutes of the committee meeting show exactly that. They were not content to disagree with that finding, which would have been their right; they sought to suppress it from the record. That was quite inappropriate. The minutes of the meeting show that course.

The chair of the meeting then asked Dr Taylor—and I quote from the minutes—whether the record of what Dr Taylor had said was fair, and whether he wished to add any words to the motion. Dr Taylor said that the content of it was reasonable as it stood. It was then put forward for inclusion in the minutes, and what did the National and Green members do? They voted against it because it did not suit their prejudice.

I want to thank the member who has just resumed his seat—David Parker, the member for Otago—for his valedictory contribution to the House today. I wish the member well in his next career move. While he wasted 5 minutes of the House’s time today, Jacqui Deans was out there, door-knocking in Oamaru. She will take that seat.

Today I want to talk about the comment made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, in 1999: “This Labour Government will set new standards, both in terms of behaviour and performance.” The public of New Zealand are appalled by the new standards that Helen Clark and her administration are setting for this country. We have the largest executive we have ever seen in the New Zealand Parliament; just about anybody who is anybody within the Labour Party caucus is now a member of the executive. What we have seen is a progression of Ministers disgracing themselves and disgracing the New Zealand Parliament. [Interruption]

I am certainly going to talk about John Tamihere, but I want to remind the public of some earlier contributions, from the likes of the Hon Marian Hobbs. She came into Parliament, became a Minister, then found herself embroiled in a dispute. She claimed the expenses associated with her living outside Wellington, but happened to live in another area for the purposes of voting. She was fired, but only temporarily. We then had the case of the Hon Dover Samuels. He was accused of having sexual relations with under-age New Zealanders. Helen Clark did not even wait for the investigation before firing him. Interestingly, the police investigated those allegations, and they found no substance to them. Next was the Hon Ruth Dyson, who, working late at night on all her papers, happened to have three glasses of white wine, then drove home and, on blowing in the bag, was found to have twice the legal limit. She was temporarily put to one side.

But compared with them the Hon John Tamihere takes the cake. John Tamihere, when he campaigned in 1999, said he would not take a golden handshake. Now there is no dispute that he did exactly the opposite. Michael Cullen came to the House and announced the terms of reference for an investigation, but there is no need for an investigation. The facts are clear. Mr Tamihere has no credibility. He said he would not accept a golden handshake, but he did. He is sitting in Henderson—he is not prepared to come back here and answer questions—collecting a full ministerial salary without having any ministerial responsibilities. That is the new standard of performance and behaviour that has been set by Helen Clark and her Government.

Although the media devote quite a lot of time to the issue of whether Mr Tamihere paid tax on the golden handshake, that is not the primary issue. The primary issue is far simpler than that. This man said during an election campaign, when golden handshakes were an issue, that he would not accept a golden handshake. That member then did so. There can be no doubt about his receiving the golden handshake; he has made no attempt to deny it. Yet Helen Clark is not prepared to act. She acted quickly on poor Dover Samuels, when he was wrongly accused, but she will not act when John Tamihere is correctly accused of accepting a golden handshake, and he admits that he did so. That is the issue that Helen Clark should be held to account for, and she will be. New Zealanders will vote in the next 12 months, and I rest my case: they will be absolutely appalled at the new standards that have been set by this Labour Government.

While the rest of the nation gets on with its daily living, Parliament gets into election mode with members making a meal of each other. I want to move right away from the issue members have been debating and talk about the fact that we are still actually being paid to make a difference in this country. I also want to talk about an issue that is of concern to me—that is, how do we best find a way to regulate the developing range of party drugs that at this stage fall outside our existing classification parameters?

Herbal highs are now the new fashion in mind-altering substances. They are advertised, marketed, and sold on the Internet, as well as over the counter in ordinary retail shops. They are marketed as being healthy, natural, and less harmful than the classified drugs they claim to be substitutes for. The benefits that customers seek are extended wakefulness, additional energy, enhanced and exaggerated feelings of euphoria, pleasure, and sociability. Advertisements refer to the products as “social weaponry”. The accompanying instructions, however, read more like the label on an over-the-counter pharmaceutical than on a health supplement. For instance, users are cautioned not to exceed the recommended dose. They are not recommended for anyone suffering from a medical condition or mental illness. They are unsuitable for people under the age of 18. People taking them are told to avoid alcohol. And the products are not recommended for pregnant mothers.

These instructions exist for good reasons, because the negative side effects range from mild aching and palpitations through to strokes, seizures, renal failure, and even death. In March of this year, five young people were admitted to Dunedin Hospital with anxiety symptoms after taking party pills—[Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Interjecting across the cross benches is, as the member knows, very disruptive.

💬 Rodney Hide: I was just trying to liven it up.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is warned. He himself has complained many times about it. He will give others the same courtesy.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think he has been on the pills

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will stand and withdraw that remark.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

I was trying to talk about young people being admitted to hospital, having taken herbal highs, particularly when they have mixed those with alcohol, against the advice on the labels.

Despite the intentions of many of those who market herbal highs, young people under 18, and even children, have easy access to these products, which are available at corner dairies and petrol stations. Retailers who claim they are trying to be responsible are not legally required to make any effort in that regard. The loudest voices on this matter to date have been the police, health professionals, and, of course, those who market and use the products. Users’ stories range from those who felt very little effect, to those who claim that their experience was more potent than the experiences they had using illegal substances. Many claim to have been awake and uncomfortably strung out for much longer than the social occasion they were trying to enjoy. Doctors are concerned, and while most agree that alcohol is taking the greatest toll in New Zealand, these herbal highs need to be viewed with real concern.

Police in New Zealand, however, seem much clearer on what they believe should be happening with regard to these substances. They want them controlled. Historically in New Zealand, we have been slow to take the advice of our front-line police. It took 7 long years for Parliament to respond to police recommendations to reclassify methamphetamine from a class B to a class A drug, and during that time the situation deteriorated to a crisis point. I believe it is time we streamlined the process so that subordinate legislation on these matters can be actioned in a timely way to respond to police concerns. It is such a waste of police resources to have them in catch-up mode on matters that were foreseen and could have been prevented.

Let us be very clear why young people are purchasing these products. It is for the same unhealthy reasons that folk use any mind-altering substance. It is the very reason why the Life Education Trust is very wary of any soft message that communicates that life can be enhanced by drugs. The law on these matters is much more than a constraint. It is a very clear message about what is healthy and what is unacceptable and risky behaviour. We have to ask ourselves whether we are happy to turn a blind eye to risk behaviour that is predicated on the idea that enjoying socialising starts with a substance to help us overcome social inhibitions.

Let us cover some facts here. I will quote from a speech by the Hon John Tamihere, given in March 2004—when he was talking to the media and when he was turning up to Parliament. Here is what he had to say: “… we need to make sure that we adhere to the highest standards. We must lift our own standards, conduct and ethics to ensure that we are beyond reproach.” That is what John Tamihere said. Members will like this—John Tamihere wrote it: “We must be role models for our young people to look to.” And members will love this—this is the instruction to the Opposition: “And if we see others who fall short of those standards, we must do something about it.” That is what ACT is doing. We are just trying to hold this Government to the standards it has set. That is all we are doing. I just wish that Helen Clark would hold her Ministers to the standards she has set.

Let us understand what has happened here. We know that it is OK to be a forger. We have worked that out. One can forge documents to obtain $160,000 from the Government—and one can still be an MP. If one pleads guilty in court, one can still turn up and be an MP and a Minister, because John Tamihere did that. One can actually plead guilty to two counts of uttering. That is OK. One can do that, turn up, and be an MP—there were two cases. Then one can turn up at Parliament, campaign on this issue, and say: “Oh, no. I’m not going to take a golden handshake. No, no! John Tamihere said he would win the votes and turned up here, after running around the back of the Waipareira Trust, knocking on doors, and asking where his money was. But the Waipareira Trust said that it had no money. Why? Because John Tamihere spent it all. The Government is pouring $8 million into the trust, but it has no money—so it had to sell $115,000-worth of assets, to provide a Labour Minister’s golden handshake totalling $195,000.

Here is what else we know about the standards of Helen Clark: one does not have to pay tax. That is right. One does not have to pay tax: one can be a lawyer, a Minister, a chief executive officer, and all one has to say is: “Oh, I thought it was a net amount.”, and that is OK. I see Clayton Cosgrove over there, and the House will enjoy this because I know that all members like Clayton Cosgrove. I came through Christchurch airport and I saw Clayton Cosgrove there. He came up to me as only he can do—like a pocket rocket: bounce, bounce, bounce. He said: “I have been talking to JT. I have been talking to JT. He says: ‘Keep it coming, keep it coming.’ He has not had this much publicity for a long time.” So I thought that I had to take Clayton Cosgrove at his word; he is an honourable member. Bother me! I went home, turned on the TV, and there was John Tamihere, the big Māori warrior from west Auckland, blubbing on Television One—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Because he got caught.

RODNEY HIDE:—because he was caught. I thought: oh well, they must have caught him at an emotional moment. He will be there in Parliament on Tuesday, will he not? The Māori warrior, the man who has done nothing wrong—has anyone seen John Tamihere? No, the big Māori warrior did not turn up.

Here is something else we know. We know that John Tamihere cannot spell very well. We have picked that up from documents he has written, and we saw some documentation with invoices for Māori trusts that do not exist. They spell liaison with only one “i”.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: So do I.

I would not own up to that. They spell accommodation with only one “m”, and mechanisms as “mechahisms”. Well, why has Helen Clark not asked John Tamihere how to spell liaison, accommodation, or mechanisms? Where did those invoices come from?

Here is another thing. Labour is the party that stands up for new standards: everyone has to be open and transparent. When we look at the Register of Ministers’ Interests and Assets, we see that it has remunerated directorships, ownerships of real property, and the holding of mortgages—but John Tamihere has a nil return. Oh, it is a pocket-rocket return.

I say to that member: better a pocket rocket than a big lump of lard! Somebody accused me of being a bulldog. Well, I say: better a bulldog than the sausage dog or lapdog, as that member is. I say that if we are going to characterise Mr Tamihere, if we are going to assassinate his character—not after the evidence is examined but before—and if we are going to pre-empt an inquiry, then I believe that it is only fair to examine the integrity and credibility of the mud-slinger.

💬 John Key: Where are the others in Labour?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It is OK, Mr Speaker. I do not mind his interjections; I love them, because it shows what a plonker he is. As Mr John Armstrong—a pretty eminent journalist, I must say—said in the New Zealand Herald this morning—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are from times slightly before ours, but I want to bring some decorum into the House. Calling Mr John Key a plonker, I think, is probably not appropriate.

I withdraw and apologise. It is not actually a matter of what John Armstrong said in the paper this morning—“saying that anything naughty Mr Tamihere was found to have done would somehow be mitigated by the naughty things Opposition MPs are supposed to have done.”—although I know the point he is trying to make; but it is only fair, in order to examine the veracity or lack of veracity of the evidence put forward, to also examine the character or lack of character of the mud-slinger to ascertain the quality of the mud.

I say to Mr Hide that getting him to reveal his history is about as tough as asking Dracula to give blood—it just ain’t gonna happen! I have raised questions, as Dr Cullen has—and we have an admission in the media from Mr Hide—about his business payments from his surrogate father, Mr Gibbs. It is not an offence, or against the Standing Orders, as we have said, for a member of this Parliament, on exit from a job, to say: “Hey, 120 or 150 grand just ain’t enough. I can’t buy too many pies with that.” It is not an offence for a member of the public to say: “Look, we want you to go to Parliament because we think you’re a good joker. We’ll give you 50 grand a year extra.” It would be an offence, of course, only if the member took the money, and then—[Interruption]

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am rather enjoying this, but I do not think that it is acceptable for the Hon Trevor Mallard to call out that a member is on the take. I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise, and I am surprised that you did not act, Mr Speaker, given that you must have heard it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way: I choose sometimes not to hear interjections, because then they do not get put into Hansard. But now that attention has been drawn to it, the member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

It would be an offence only if the money were tagged to an action. Mr Hide has been asked on many occasions whether he is receiving extra payments, but he will not disclose that. That is the character of the man. If we look at the character of Mr Hide, we see that he will not disclose, to this day—I ask him to spell “Fiji”—why he has not come clean and assisted the authorities in terms of who paid air fares and accommodation and who arranged invitations to a dodgy investment conference run by an American felon. That is not an accusation to say that Mr Hide is corrupt. It may be an accusation to say that he was duped. That is OK; we all get duped—he does, more than most. But to this day there have been no answers from Mr Hide on the subject of Fiji, or on pecuniary interests. There are no answers as to why he voted for the Government Administration Committee’s 1998 recommendation for MPs to declare their pecuniary interests—and then voted against it.

We have a wonderful quote—one that again goes to the character of the person. In the North and South issue of May 2002, Mr Hide talked about the kind of friends he has. I know that Mr Henderson’s name has already been used. Mr Hide, in illustrating the kinds of friends he likes to be with, says: “I liked the guys,”—this is interesting—“all of them drunks, crooks, thieves, wife-beaters and fighters, but I enjoyed them immensely.” So I have a question for Mr Hide. I would be grateful to know which of the preceding five categories his close friend Mr David Henderson fits into. I would be grateful if he would elucidate and tell us. Then he went on to say—and this goes to the character of the person throwing the mud—again, talking about the friends, those wife-beaters, crooks, thieves, fighters, and drunks: “If this is the way the game goes then I’ll play it …”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to signal to that member that I am sure if he sought leave for another 5 minutes to defend John Tamihere, members opposite would agree.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The member knows that that is not a point of order.

I seek leave to table a document of May 2002 where Mr Hide characterises his friends as drunks, crooks, thieves, wife-beaters, and fighters.

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt Mr Cosgrove when he was speaking, because he had already been interrupted once before, but I do not think that Mr Mallard can get away with saying that “He is being paid from outside to be in here.”, which is a very serious allegation to make. Mr Mallard made that comment. I say it should stop because I am beginning to understand the flavour of these debates every day in respect of Mr Tamihere, and it is basically this: “You guys have been as bad as us.”, and vice versa. We want to make sure that New Zealand First is not part of that little language. Therefore, I want to say that the member should withdraw and apologise, just in case one of us is implicated.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What were the words the member said?

He said, about Mr Hide, that: “He is being paid from outside to be in here.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will think about that particular sentence, because I want to know in what way it is out of order to make that particular comment. It might be perfectly legitimate.

If I could just outline it, it is the suggestion that someone is mildly or grossly under the influence of someone from outside the House—like the sort of Tory questions about money in the UK.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to ask one question: was the member making that sort of accusation of Mr Hide?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It depends on what you meant by “that sort”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I meant the accusation that he was under the influence of people, and that he was paid to come here and make certain statements in Parliament.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Do you mean that he was being paid by people to be a member of Parliament; not to make particular statements?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is not out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to take into account, when you do give this the more timely consideration you are planning, that that is an honourable tradition. Indeed, from my days in the Labour Party I recall a number of early Labour heroes who were in fact supported by their unions to be here. If the Speaker is to rule on that, it would be helpful to look at older history from an earlier period.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am interested in finding out whether there was any statement made that was out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that if a member is paid money in order to influence him or her in the decision making, that is totally out of order. That is where the matter rests at this stage.

I wish to make a personal explanation. I want to assure the Speaker and the House that I am not being paid to be a member of Parliament, as Trevor Mallard asserts and Clayton Cosgrove implies.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In the words of the member, as he has stated them, his word must be accepted.

I seek leave to table the rather flattering article calling me the “Leader of the Opposition”, which Clayton Cosgrove was referring to, about the time when I was working with working-class people.

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

I rise at the invitation of the member, and I seek leave for a further 5 minutes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member seeks leave for a further 5 minutes’ debate. Is there any objection?

💬 Rodney Hide: Is he going to defend John Tamihere for 5 minutes—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member has asked for leave to give an extra 5-minute speech. He is entitled to do that. Is there any objection?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I object, but I do invite Mr Clayton Cosgrove to take up the challenge. If he is giving his undertaking to members that he is prepared to give us a 5-minute defence of Mr Tamihere, because he knows the charges against him, then at that point I think that everybody in the House—especially as Mr Tamihere cannot be here—would be quite happy to hear that 5-minute defence.

Of course that is in the hands of the member. The member did not ask for that. The member asked for leave to make a 5-minute speech. If that was what he was wanting to do, I took the leave, and leave was objected to.

💬 Opposition Member: Put it again.

All right. Leave is requested by the member, and I take him at his word—no one else’s. Leave is taken by Mr Cosgrove to have another 5-minute speech. That is what his request is. Is there any objection?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do object to that. I think that you should listen carefully, because you have to listen to the will of the House. The will of the House is that if Mr Clayton Cosgrove wants to get up and give a 5-minute defence of Mr Tamihere, when members all know that Mr Tamihere cannot be here, then there is no member who will object. I thought that I heard Mr Clayton Cosgrove then give members his word that that is what he wants to do. On that point, I will not object.

I do not know the Standing Order, Mr Speaker, so I will ask your advice. When has it become an order in this House that if a member seeks leave to make a speech, another member of the Opposition or anybody else can prescribe what that member should speak about? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Somebody is about to go outside for the rest of the afternoon for making a totally objectionable remark. I think that everybody knows perfectly well what is going on here. Mr Prebble was perfectly within his rights to object. Mr Clayton Cosgrove, however, is the only person who can seek leave to speak, and in the terms that he himself prescribes.

I so seek leave.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When he says: “I so seek leave.”, I have no idea what he means, because it could be ruled that he is asking for 5 minutes to speak about anything, which I would say is trifling with the House. But if Mr Clayton Cosgrove gets up—and I will try to help him—and says that he seeks 5 minutes’ time in this House so that he can defend Mr John Tamihere from the charges he has had, and if Mr Cosgrove gives members the undertaking that that is what he wants to do, then members will of course accept that.

I think the important point here is that if Mr Cosgrove decides to do that and to defend Mr Tamihere, the House will have to be liberal, because I am sure that Mr Cosgrove will defend Mr Tamihere with a series of parallels of behaviour that we know about and that are sneakily denied, but whose facts will become clear.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is, of course, where we get into difficulty, because Mr Cosgrove alone can seek leave, and he has to give the terms under which he wants to give the speech. [Interruption] I tell members that he alone can seek leave in the terms that he wants to seek leave for, and if he wants to do that now, he can. But he makes that condition and the House can then judge.

I seek leave in respect of what Mr Prebble has prescribed.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No, no.

I seek leave for 5 minutes for matters related to John Tamihere and his defence. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has sought leave in terms relating to John Tamihere. Is there any objection? There is none.

I will always defend any member of this House, or any member of the New Zealand public, until evidence has been examined. I will not make a judgment. In this country, there is a right to—[Interruption] Those members do not want to hear it. There is a principle in this democracy that the facts of a case are examined either in a court or an inquiry before a judgment is made. I come back to this: in a court the cross-examination is also about the character of the people making the accusations.

I come back to that, and I come back to the mudslinger, Mr Hide, who to this day, after authorities approached him and advised him that a conference he attended—where pyramid schemes fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars out of New Zealanders, and where by his own admission he says he was duped—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that my colleagues and I in New Zealand First are absolutely enraptured by this speech. We are learning things every moment, but we would like to hear the speech in a rather less noisy environment. So if my colleagues behind me from the National Party could just desist a little bit, we would hear far more.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be a vigorous debate and there will be the odd interjection allowed but that was too much interjection.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is a relatively new member, but when one gets leave—[Interruption]

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: The House has set aside its time to give Mr Clayton Cosgrove permission to do what he said he wanted—to defend Mr Tamihere. In fact, he appears to be using the time to make an attack upon another member of Parliament—who is now not able to defend himself, at all. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that you should caution Mr Clayton Cosgrove and tell him that getting leave is a serious matter, and that if he is not able to defend Mr Tamihere, then perhaps he should just sit down. The charges are quite clear and those are the matters he ought to address.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Prebble has made a point, part of which I agree with. The member did ask for leave to speak in relation to the defence of Mr Tamihere. I know that that will involve other comments that can be made, and I do not want to be too harsh in that area, but his speech must basically be about defending Mr Tamihere.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the key point here is that the defence of a member must involve an examination of the effective prosecution of that member in this House. We have had Mr Hide make a series of very, very serious allegations, and it is my view that Mr Cosgrove must have the opportunity to analyse those and the basis on which they were made.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any other assistance on this matter. I made my ruling, and that is how my ruling will stand. I do not think the member has added to it.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think what Mr Mallard said was perfectly reasonable. Of course there has to be some discussion with regard to the prosecution, and that will take up some of the time. He has about 3 minutes and 50 seconds left. Clearly that will not be enough. I would like to signal that certainly the National Opposition is willing to extend further time to Mr Cosgrove, so that once he has got rid of his arguments against the prosecution he can come to the defence of John Tamihere, because not only are we waiting to hear it but so is most of the nation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that Mr Cosgrove has asked for leave, which the House granted him, and he has 3 minutes and 51 seconds to go.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seriously, I actually thank the Minister for his contribution there. I signal that New Zealand First believes that Mr Cosgrove would probably need some 30 minutes to do justice to such a defence and counter-attack on the prosecution’s assertions. I signal through you to Mr Cosgrove that, should he like to seek leave, there would be no objection to a half-hour speech on this issue.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is up to Mr Cosgrove; it is not up to anybody else.

Such cooperation in the House I have not seen for a long time! There is a need, when the mud-slinger throws mud, to ascertain the quality of that mud. Part of that process is to ascertain and characterise the integrity and credibility of the mud-slinger. We know that Mr Hide attended an investment conference and he claimed that he got duped. We know that hundreds of New Zealanders lost millions of dollars.

We also know that he was approached by authorities and to this day he will not answer the simple question: why did he not go to the authorities? So if he will not come clean, then we have to question the evidence that is provided.

We have to question why Mr Hide said publicly that he would only cooperate in a limited way with the Douglas White inquiry. He drip-fed a little morsel here, a little tantalising titbit there, and he relied for his evidence on a dodgy audit report that he flicked around the gallery to a few of his mates. That report stated in its covering letter that it was not an audit review report at all.

It is very interesting that Mr Tamihere is one of the people who called for an audit and a review, and formed an audit committee. None of the complainants were asked what the problems were by the auditors. None of the elders, the trustees, or others who had raised financial concerns were ever asked. The auditors went on to interview the “gang of three”, who were under investigation. We now know of another of Mr Hide’s sources: Mr Bruce Bryant, who is a close family member and who has a relationship with a very prominent member in our community—but we will leave that subject there. I say to Mr Hide that he should tell us about Port Douglas, but I leave that subject there.

I say to Mr Hide that all the evidence he relies on and that he has drip-fed to the public is slowly being unpicked. He relied on a dodgy report that he said was an audit and review report. That has been disproved. So in defence of Mr Tamihere, I say that people should look at the evidence and its quality. I do not know the last time Mr Prebble made an argument in a court, but even he, I think—and he is a learned lawyer and I do respect his talents—would say that the first thing one does is look at the evidence.

I ask the question: why did the trust break the constitution by appointing a member of the audit committee to a job in the Waipareira Trust? Who appointed him? One of the members of the “gang of three” appointed an audit committee member—who was a trustee—to a job in the trust, which is directly in contravention of the constitution. If that is not influencing an audit committee, I do not know what is. So I say that people should look at the evidence, and judge when the evidence is judged.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a fascinating speech from—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

I am going to seek leave, but of course I need to tell the House what it is about.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must seek leave on his own behalf.

On my own behalf—absolutely.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please do so now.

As I say, that was a fascinating—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will actually seek leave. He does not have to go into the reasons. I want to know what the leave is for first.

I seek the leave of the House to ask Mr Cosgrove some questions about his speech.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for Mr Brownlee to ask questions. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to give a 5-minute speech on Mr Tamihere, in which I intend after 10 seconds to yield to Clayton Cosgrove.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to give a 5-minute speech. Is there any objection? There is.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.