General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It has been said that teams play as well as they have to, and it has also been said that Governments are only as good as their Oppositions oblige them to be. I sincerely hope for the sake of the people of New Zealand that that is not the case. I have every confidence that we can perform much better—and we do perform much better—as a Government than we are obliged to by the pathetic efforts of our Opposition.

I want to look back over the year of Dr Don Brash, the Leader of the Opposition. He has had a busy and productive year. We would like to highlight Dr Brash’s significant achievements in the areas of policy announcements. In January Dr Brash said this: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech in each of my five main priorities—race relations, education, welfare dependency, security, and the economy”—at least he had those written down. That is the sort of speech that a retiring speechwriter might write: “Over the next 5 months I plan to give major speeches on each of my five main priorities. They are—” and then he looks at the next page and it reads: “You’re on your own, you sod.” , but in this case, they did not need to write it.

In July Dr Brash said: “The thing”—we can see he had been thinking about it between January and July—“you’ll see increasingly is major policies being rolled out.” In September he said: “The likelihood is that we won’t do any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform, education, and so on until the beginning of next year.” Later on in September he said: “We’ll hold fire until next year.” In October, we hear this—and he is backtracking, of course, following a series of bad polls for National—“It is now reported that Dr Brash may bring forward a key speech on reforming welfare.”

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading it.

I am quoting. “Despite deciding to hold fire on policy, Dr Brash announced National’s policy on Kyoto a few weeks ago.” Their policy, he said, would be to follow the United States and Australia. He said: “I can’t be more specific than that. What will determine it is whether we think there is any advantage in that, and at the moment that is still not firmly resolved.” National’s policy on the Kyoto Protocol is not the only one still not firmly resolved.

On the issue of New Zealand being nuclear-free, in April 1987 Dr Brash said this: “I have always taken the view that there is not a great deal to be said for New Zealand being an active participant in a nuclear alliance.” He was a nuclear-free warrior in those days. He told the Dominion Post that even when he was a National Party candidate, he favoured a ban on visits by nuclear warships. But by October 2003 he said this: “Well, I have got some views on that issue but I won’t tell you about them at this point because Wyatt Creech is doing a report on that issue, and it is due out. So until it comes out I think I’ll hold my counsel.” Well, talk about decisive leadership! The presenter asked him: “So you think that is what Bill English should have done?”. Dr Brash said: “Err, well, let’s say he got himself into some trouble by adding a degree of confusion about the National Party’s policy. I think he was probably unwise to have expressed views on that.” By January 2004 Dr Brash is still undecided, but much more decisively undecided than previously. He said: “If the report suggests that we should change our position, we will look at it.”

This afternoon a wake-up call was tabled in the House, and 10 years from now, when people have forgotten “John Who? Resigned when? About what?”, and they have forgotten the misdemeanours of “What was that name of the leader of the National Party back in 2004?”, they will, however, still be coping with the consequences of the fact that the underpinnings of our prosperity from farming in this country are seriously at risk. The report tabled this afternoon from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment states that our farming is currently unsustainable, that our prosperity, our standard of living, depends on farming, and that farming cannot continue to go on the way it is at the moment, without major change. I would suggest that that issue ought to be occupying rather more of the attention of the House than it is getting today. If farming is to be become sustainable it must be rethought on the basis of ecological systems, not just on the basis of short-term economics. It cannot be economic if it is destroying its resource base, and if it destroying the natural capital on which our future depends.

Current farming practices are degrading water quality, they are overusing water quantity, they are losing soil into the sea at a 10-times faster rate than the rest of the world, and dependence on non-renewable energy is growing by the year, they are a major source of greenhouse gases, and they are changing the very climate on which our farming depends. There has got to be change.

We all know that lakes Rotorua and Taupō are seriously degenerating, with algal blooms in some places and water quality that is unfit for human contact. We have a report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd that our lowland streams are, on the whole, not fit to swim in any longer. Fish and Game New Zealand has been carrying out a campaign on dirty dairying, because of the impacts of the dairy industry on lowland water quality. The reason for all of this is agricultural runoff, particularly of nitrogen and phosphorus. We know there is a 40-year delay from when this is applied to the land, before it even gets into Lake Taupō, so it will get worse even if we stop applying fertiliser. And we learn in this report tabled today that nitrogen fertiliser has increased by 160 percent across our farming system in just 6 years. We need radical action now, and even then things will get worse long before they can get better.

The area that is reliant on irrigation has been expanding at 55 percent every decade. That takes more energy to pump the irrigation water; that leaves less water in our rivers to dilute the runoff when it comes, and fosters more intensive agriculture with more runoff, and our aquifers are falling. The direct use of energy on farms has gone up 30 percent in the last decade, and we can add to that that our fertilisers and pesticides are wholly reliant on non-renewable fossil fuels. We can add to that the dependence on oil-based transport to get our farm products to market. Oil is now $55 a barrel, and that will keep rising. There is no going back to $19 a barrel, or even $30 a barrel, because we have got to the stage where the world’s oilfields cannot produce very much more than what they are producing now, and demand is still rising. The greenhouse gases from farming are up 15 percent since 1990, and that cannot keep growing, either.

This is not an indictment of the present-day farmers, or of the present-day Minister, or of the present Government, any more than it is of the farmers, the Government, and Ministers of the past. It has been going on for decades, but it is a challenge to present-day farmers, and the Minister and the Government. In question time today the Minister acknowledged the issue, but did he pick up the challenge? He is a bit short on solutions so far. He said: “The sustainable farming fund is addressing these issues.” The sustainable farming fund has spent $33 million over 4 years on some good initiatives, but it is a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed to turn our farming in a sustainable direction. We need more science invested in sustainable land management.

In my short term in Parliament it seems to me that October is an amazing month for parties. Twelve months ago National had a clear choice: a young man with a future to lead the party, or an elderly man to take them back to the 1990s. They took the latter course, to move back to the 1990s. If we watch the Leader of the Opposition move around the country, he is recruiting 1990s men to advocate 1990s policies to further drive the knife into the poor and dispossessed of this country. And that is the irony of today’s debate. It is a year later that the Hon John Tamihere, whose commitment to working for the underprivileged, the marginalised, and the disadvantaged, at huge personal expense, has been demonstrated by the manner in which he has been excoriated by flippant, right-wing individuals of this House. It is easy to make slurs under privilege, it is easy to make accusations under privilege, it is easy to rake through the coals of someone’s past and raise matters that are half-truths, but it is much harder to come up with real substance.

The real pity about that, of course, is that at a time when this country might need some leadership the House lowers itself to the level of the worst members of the Opposition. I do not want to go into that behaviour. I do not want to go into the flip-flops of the man who helped others down the stairs and paid the court $8,500 for the privilege. I do not want to go into the story of the man who could not tell the truth under oath—at least that is what the High Court judge understood it to be.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, he didn’t say that at all.

He disbelieved his evidence on oath, which is the same as not telling the truth on oath. I did not mention that man but he spoke up in response, so clearly it touched a key point.

In the last 12 months we have seen a history of uninformed comments, of not understanding what is really happening in this country, of trying to grab headlines on the back of people who try to do well in this country.

💬 Ron Mark: Didn’t this man defend a child murderer?

Mr Ron Mark would have to understand that people who are accused of crimes are entitled to a good defence. I would have thought he would be the last person to throw any stones in that regard.

Look at the current issue before this country, which is the attack upon the Parliament by the Chief Justice, and members opposite make no comment or raise no issue in the House on what really is a major constitutional issue. Our Chief Justice claims not to have thought she would be reported at an international conference, and makes a criticism of the Prime Minister over issues apparently about the Budget. That is an issue that Parliament should debate. It is an issue that has been ignored in this House over the last week, as people hunt around for scandals to ride to achieve 5 minutes of notoriety and perhaps a little bit of fame.

Interestingly, those who throw mud pay the price. We need to look at the polls. Who is the person throwing the mud? It is the leader of the “1 percent party”. Who are they throwing the mud at? At the person who has 86 percent support in this country—John Tamihere. Every poll indicates that he is a man who has achieved something, a man with a future, and a man who deserves a fair go. These people who throw mud in this House, the “1 percent” and those on the way out, ignore the harm on the family of someone who comes to this House—the young children and the wife who spend their time at home. They listen and are not able to defend themselves.

💬 Ron Mark: Tell us about Tuku’s underpants.

If the member is comparing $89 underpants with the accusation that Mr Tamihere is facing, he should go and change his. We have the politics of bitterness, the politics where we ignore the issues of the day to try to pull down an individual for some short-term personal achievement. I am proud to stand here as a member of the Labour Party at a time when John Tamihere is on the ropes. He is a man who, whatever he has done wrong, if anything, has given more to this country than those who are yapping on the Opposition benches. He has worked harder for people who need to be represented than those who foot-dance around policy.

It does not matter what sort of gloss they might want to put on it, this is a very dark day for the Labour Party. We know that is the case because the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister came into the Chamber, together with several of their front-bench members, and resorted to very nasty personal attacks on members on this side of the House. They wanted somehow to say that John Tamihere, the great hope for the future of the Labour Party, putting his hand in the till and ripping the cash off some of the poorest New Zealanders, is OK. Three weeks after the issue was raised, 3 weeks after the question was asked, he scurried up to the Prime Minister’s office and said: “I can’t get myself out of this. I have to admit that I did it, I took it.”, and the Prime Minister came into the House and said that he is an honourable man for resigning.

He has resigned only because he has been caught. He has finally handed in his warrants only because he knew that if he waited the Prime Minister would take them from him. Anyone who says that this is someone who has acted honourably has his or her head stuck in the sand.

As for the personal barbs that have been sent my way, let me make it very clear that I have never, for one minute, hidden the fact that I faced up to a civil court, not a criminal court, gave the other party a day in court, and paid the price. I never tried to hide that. But Mr Tamihere, even in his personal statement today, is still trying to hide it. He simply cannot get away with that sort of behaviour.

The Ministers and members over there who shake their heads know that it is the beginning of the end for this Labour Government. John Tamihere can never again stand before an audience and say: “I’m on your side. Look at my record.”, because that record will be forever besmirched by the fact that he said: “I cannot take a payment off you.”, and then spent time making sure he got it. But these are not wealthy people, these are not people with an endless amount of resource, they are some of the poorest New Zealanders. To say that they were grateful to him for everything he did for them, and therefore they insisted he take this considerable payment, just will not wash.

People will be nice to him, people will consider his family—something the Labour Party does not often do—and they will accept his word in this House. But he will not be back in Cabinet, he will not be at the helm of the Labour Party, and he will not be out on the marae, selling the Labour Party message in any way that gets listened to or in any way that gets accepted.

I do not doubt that the Labour Party will send him on some sort of a reconciliation tour around the marae of this country. I do not doubt that his whanaunga in those places will embrace him, as families do, but they will not forgive him, because they have been betrayed by him.

I want to make a couple of other comments about the indication Dr Cullen gave today, that Mr White has virtually no choice, it would seem, other than to vindicate the position that John Tamihere put to the House today. That is very, very worrying. What it means is that, given Dr Cullen’s speech in the House today, this investigation is now a sham. Further, I have to say this quite publicly to the Serious Fraud Office: we in the National Opposition had our confidence in that office seriously shaken by the performance at the select committee this morning. We will be watching very closely the progress of this inquiry. Whatever happens, it is evident that Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister want this swept under the carpet.

At least that was a better speech than Don Brash’s. Dr Brash did not know that the situation had changed, so he stuck to the script and could not even alter his supplementary questions. Then Mr Hide’s twin, Mr Brownlee, got up. All I will say to Mr Brownlee is that John Tamihere stood in this House and admitted what he had done wrong. I recall that member in a glass house throwing stones—or in Mr Brownlee’s case, he should not throw people down stairs. I remember that member defending the case. I would have thought it would be pretty cut and dried when one biffs a senior citizen down the stairs, and puts the boot in. One just fronts up and says: “Hey, mea culpa, I did it.” But oh no, he spent a few bits of brass defending that case.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to point out to the House that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has just shown himself to be extremely reckless with the truth. I would accuse him of being a liar, but I cannot. My point of order is this. I made a personal statement about this matter—

Well, challenge it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Mr Cosgrove is running close to leaving the Chamber, but I will leave him there.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: —and I presented the absolute facts to the House. I understood that when a member does present the facts, those points that are included in that personal statement almost set the bounds for how that matter is referred to in the future. I want to tell Mr Cosgrove and his colleagues, that if they want to open up Mr Tamihere to a bit more allegation, he should carry on with his speech.

💬 Stephen Franks: I would ask you, despite the slightly inflammatory end to that point of order, to give it careful consideration. Because a succession of Chairs in this Chamber have allowed that member to continue to refer to events about which Mr Hide made a personal explanation in terms that directly contradict his explanation, and I do think it is time that the man in question was ordered out next time he does it.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I simply refer both members, and other members of the House, to the content of the speeches that they themselves have made today in relation to the personal statement made in this House today, before yet again casting stones in a glass house.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any more assistance. A member’s word will be taken in this House. I have been conscious of a number of members referring to John Tamihere. But I think most of them were very careful not to show in any way that they do not accept what he said. In this case Mr Cosgrove was doubting and embellishing matters relating to Gerry Brownlee. No more of that.

I want to talk about credibility and integrity, and I want to make some comparisons.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, yeah!

If I were Mr Smith I would not start. I want to talk about credibility, morals, and commitment. Let us line up Mr Tamihere, who stood in the House and for the first time had the opportunity to present some facts here. Now the evidence is out.

Dr Brash made a very interesting statement in his contribution to the snap debate. He said that the Government was out of step with ordinary New Zealanders, in the way it had dealt with the issue. Well, there is a real problem with the people who have thrown mud, as Dr Brash and Mr Hide have. The people have spoken, and 82 percent have said that these are very, very serious allegations, and they should be examined. The Government has met that request with a high-level inquiry. Let us not forget that it was Mr Tamihere who referred some days ago—before the trust did—the allegations on the Paragon report so wildly thrown around this Chamber, and he himself referred them to the Serious Fraud Office. Eighty-two percent of New Zealanders have said: “Let’s examine it. We want a high-level inquiry, but we are holding judgment.” I tell Dr Brash, Mr Brownlee, Mr Smith over there, and Mr Hide, that the problem they have is they want to execute a person before the facts are examined. The problem with that, of course, is that those Opposition parties are out of step with 82 percent of New Zealanders. I tell members that I will stand by John Tamihere, and I would be proud to have him in my electorate before I would stand in that huge shadow cast by Mr Brownlee and his twin, Mr Hide. Because if one looks at the commitments and achievements in business with the trust—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No.

It is OK, let him go, I love it. I relish it because he makes a fool of himself—bring him on! I say this: look at the achievements of John Tamihere in that trust—12 employees, half a million bucks turnover; he took that to 200 staff and 12 million bucks turnover a year. Name me a couple of members, or the two in the front row, especially the deputy leader of the Opposition, or Mr Hide for that matter—we know from his track record in gilt-edged securities he could not put a deal together if he tried—name me their achievements. One should line up those achievements and Mr Tamihere’s record with legislation in this place, against Mr Hide whom a newspaper referred to as the “human wrecking-ball”. Mr Hide’s achievements, of course, are to tear down, smear, and throw mud. But he does not like it, of course, when members raise issues about him.

I have never ever, and I will not, challenge the member’s word. That would be out of order. I have spoken about matters concerning the Fiji scam without challenging his statement. I have simply asked him to come clean on questions that, of course, he refuses to answer. To this day he refuses to answer why it was he—the perk-buster—who did nothing when he came back from that scam conference to go after the people who ripped off millions of dollars from hundreds of New Zealanders. He will not answer who paid his airfares, who set up the invitation, even after the Serious Fraud Office and the Securities Commission made him very much aware that it was a scam. But of course the perk-buster calls for accountability everywhere except in his own personal circumstances.

So I say to Mr Hide: enjoy the media. I say to Mr Brownlee: enjoy the roll on this one. I believe that Mr Tamihere will come through this, and then Mr Hide will reap the whirlwind from the people, because the people are fair-minded. It says a lot about Kiwis when they say: “We will give you a fair go; we want this examined, this is serious, but we won’t judge you until after the inquiry.” I say to Mr Hide: “You enjoy the roll.”—if anybody could roll, he could—“You enjoy the roll, and you reap the whirlwind.” Then it will become an issue of Mr Hide’s leadership, Mr Hide’s integrity, and where Mr Hide goes from here. I relish that debate.

Members can imagine our astonishment last week when on the front page of the Dominion Post we saw an image that highlighted what New Zealand First has been saying about our flawed refugee policy better than anything we could have said ourselves. Pictured there was a woman refugee, Asha Ali Abdille, a sickness beneficiary, who was upset because we wanted to improve our health screening services and that was preventing her from bringing in 14 additional family members.

💬 Dail Jones: How many?

Fourteen additional family members. Now, we have said for years that our system needs to be tightened so that one refugee equals one refugee, not 14 refugees who slide in through the back-door and on to our welfare system.

But this story just gets worse. I wonder whether the journalists involved really knew just who it was they were putting on the front page of the Dominion Post. It turns out that the so-called sympathy case for bleeding-heart liberals has a background that Al Capone would have been proud of. She has, first, several convictions for violence and intimidation; second, a charge of conspiracy to kill, which did not proceed because the prosecution witnesses refused to testify; third, evidence of already bringing in several family members, some of whom were allegedly not true family members, which checks failed to identify; fourth, regular movement between the Somali communities of Hamilton, Hawke’s Bay, Christchurch, and Lower Hutt, using intimidatory tactics to get her way; and, fifth, a well-known reputation for carrying weapons and spitting in people’s faces, and then for telling them she has AIDS—clearly a true role model for our refugee programme. This story has a disturbing undercurrent that our soft policies allow to happen.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: When did she come?

Ten years ago—when I was not in power. National and Labour are equally guilty on this matter. National was in power, but if the Dominion Post wants the real story it will be about the lax laws and weak system used to allow these people to come in, and then straight away to exploit the New Zealand taxpayer.

This morning at the select committee we were told by the Immigration Service that three of the MV Tampa boys have brought in 11 people already—each, not together; three of them have brought in 11 each. That is a disgrace and an abomination to this country.

We are now discovering that Chinese immigration to Christchurch has underpinned a thriving black market that local authorities, on their own admission, are not capable of containing. They estimate, from what they actually know, that there is a multimillion dollar black market operating in Christchurch, but they really do not know how big it is. The basis of the black market is the corruption-riddled immigration consultant business that this Government has done nothing to combat, and that continues to see scam after scam go undetected and unpunished. This black market operation is aided by lax laws surrounding student visas, work permits, and other easily exported visas and permits. The result of that, when an investigation by the Immigration Service happens, is that nearly half of all marriage claims and over 80 percent of all job claims in that region turn out to be fake.

If we were in power this is what would happen: a person would tell one lie—and be on the next plane. That does not happen with those people in the Labour Government. Under the Labour Government anybody and everybody can exploit the New Zealand taxpayer. Once here, these groups set about ripping off the system, and 90 percent of refugees have never been off benefits. Nine out of 10 are still on benefits. Once here, these groups set out to rip off the system and work in the shady world of the black market, often escaping penalties because of the soft policies surrounding these issues.

It is a rort, and it has to stop. It is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and has resulted in a new brand of criminal underworld that we are not, in any way, equipped to deal with, but which requires urgent attention. Every time I hear the Minister give assurances, I know full well that he has no idea what on earth he is talking about. He has no idea about what is going on out there. He is just making lousy excuses, as the previous Minister did. Fifty thousand people are coming here, and refugees—[Interruption] Well, if a country is entitled to have 14 each, and that will be 20. We are not talking about 750 refugees a year; we are talking about 20,000 people coming here on a UN requirement for 750.

Listening to the exchanges that have just been going on between Mr Peters and Ms Dalziel I am reminded of the proverb “Absence makes the heart grow fonder”. I want to talk this afternoon about the report that was released by the OECD last week, which has been widely reported for one element of what it said but largely ignored for another. I refer to the report about the state of families in New Zealand, and particularly to some of the comments that were made by Dr Adema, the author, with regard to the domestic purposes benefit and getting people back into the workforce.

Although that report provoked a predictable chorus from those who say it is time to cut the domestic purposes benefit, the real point it was making was that in our system at the moment there is significant disincentive for the second earner in a family to get back into the workforce. If one takes a long-term view about the structure of both families and our tax system, and also about the structure of our workforce, then addressing that issue relating to the second income earner becomes critically important, and is far more important than whether we reduce the domestic purposes benefit.

United Future has campaigned for some time for the policy known as income-splitting. In many senses, that policy goes to the heart of the concern expressed in that OECD report. The problem we have at the moment is the anomalous situation where if a couple are involved in running a business—be it a farm, a corner dairy, or something more expansive—they can assign their income to each other and be taxed accordingly. But where they are running a household as equal partners, even though one might be the sole income earner, or one might be a substantial income earner and the other a small part-time income earner, they are unable to make that assignment.

Earlier this year a lot was made of the Gilbert family in Waihī—a family earning around $55,000 a year and complaining quite legitimately of middle-class squeeze. Under the income-splitting policy that we propose, if that $55,000 were being earned as a single income and assigned between the two partners, then that family would be a minimum of $45 a week better off, given current tax rates. If the tax rates changed or reduced, then that benefit would increase.

Many people, and I have talked to a large number, mainly women, in this category of being the second-income earner, are desperately keen to get back into the workforce, but are nobbled by the high cost of childcare. So they go to work to pay the childcare, to go to work, to pay the childcare, and it becomes a vicious circle they do not break out of.

Let us assume that that family, in a few years’ time, has had a net salary increase in terms of either the part-time work or the full-time work of up to around $65,000 a year—getting close to what is actually the current average household income. The benefit to them from an income-splitting policy is in the order of $75,000—I mean $75 a week. I wish it were the former, but that is somewhat a slip of the tongue. Earlier in the House this afternoon, in attempting to debunk that argument, the Minister said the problem was that if they were earning the same amount, there would be no benefit.

Yes, he is absolutely right, but that misses the point of the policy. The Treasury review in 2000 also missed the point. Where there is an equality of income there is not a problem. The tax is the tax, is the tax! It is where there is that inequality, or where that single income is being spread over a household, that the problem arises. If one talks to people about the concern and the incentive that they have to get back into the workforce, that is the area of concern and that is why income-splitting is a fair policy. It does recognise the equal contribution that both parents make to the household, whether one is working in the workforce and the other is working in the home. It is a practical policy that can be implemented at a time when the Government is taking $4.5 billion more in tax than it ever budgeted to. A policy that costs $500 million a year is very practical and very much in the interest of New Zealand families, and we promote it.

For a Prime Minister to lose one Minister is careless, but to lose six Ministers, including Lianne Dalziel for being dishonest, shows that this Government is rotten to the core in its culture. We have to ask the question: what is it about the culture of this Helen Clark Government that Ministers believe that they can say one thing and do another?

We have had all sorts of speeches from Government members today about the word “honour” in relation to the announcement from John Tamihere and his resignation. It is anything but. Let us not get cute. The reason the announcement was made this afternoon was to hide the disgraceful conduct of Mr John Tamihere under the news wave of the US presidential election. What has changed? Lianne Dalziel chuckles away. Is she a member we would believe? As a Minister she was fired for being dishonest. Ruth Dyson can throw her name into the hat. She is a member with criminal convictions who had to resign.

The US presidential election was the reason this has been announced today, not 4 weeks ago when John Tamihere knew he had taken a $195,000 golden handshake when he said he would not take it, and not 4 years ago when he knew that he had taken $195,000 when he said he would not take it. There is absolutely no honour in that whatsoever.

Mark Burton pretends, as do other Labour members, that John Tamihere has done nothing wrong. That is how low the Labour Party sets the standard. They say that it is OK to do one thing opposite to what they have said. The tone has been set by the Prime Minister. Let us remember that this is the Prime Minister who signed a painting that she did not paint. She committed an act of fraud and she set the example of dishonesty that goes on within this Government. This is also the Prime Minister who was dishonest in telling the people of New Zealand that all the “corngate” documents were released at the last election, when that was blatantly dishonest and not true.

The Prime Minister set a standard and six Ministers have had to resign because of their disgraceful conduct. I ask the House to compare that behaviour with the last 9 years of the National Government, when not one Minister was found to be dishonest—not one.

I want to know how we can believe anything that Labour Government Ministers say. In this example, John Tamihere was caught out. How many times did we hear members opposite say, when questions were asked about the Waipareira Trust, that we were being grossly unfair, we were muckraking, and that anything that had happened was completely kosher. Now we find out that $195,000 of public money, intended to help our most disadvantaged citizens, was taken to line the pockets of a Labour Minister, who was drawing a salary of nearly $250,000 a year.

💬 Judith Collins: How much?

Nearly $250,000 a year was being drawn as salary, and John Tamihere and this Government think it is OK for him to take $195,000 in a golden handshake.

I do ask the question as to what is the standard that is acceptable to this Government. In the speeches we have heard this afternoon one Government member after another has defended—believe it or not—the “integrity” of John Tamihere, given what he has now admitted, and knowing that he was caught out for saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. Whether it is Official Information Act requests, the dishonesty of Lianne Dalziel—who, it is a matter of fact, lied to the public and had to resign her portfolio—now John Tamihere, and, after Dover Samuels and so many other Ministers, how can we believe anything this Government says?

Having heard the previous speaker it is clear the Opposition is doing the numbers now; looking for another new leader. The Opposition got its wake-up call today, when we witnessed something quite incredible on the Opposition benches. Members opposite were nervous, anxious, jittery; then there was silence. The Leader of the Opposition made a cameo appearance and spoke in this House. Ten minutes later, in a silence so deafening that a member on the other side thought he heard an alarm clock, the National Party got its wake-up call. Those members know there is no leadership in their party and no inspiration about where things are going. What they have is “flashback Brash” or “back-in-a-flash Brash”. No matter what way we say it, they know they are doomed.

The polls are looking good for this Government. We have made some changes in communities—real communities. But what is National’s track record under the leadership of Don Brash? In January this year Dr Brash said: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech on each of my five main priorities—race relations, education, welfare dependency, security, and the economy.” What has the public heard? Nothing. In July this year Dr Brash said: “The thing you will see increasingly is major policies being rolled out.” What has the public of New Zealand heard from the National Party? Nothing. Then in September this year Dr Brash said: “The likelihood is that we will not do any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform, education, health, and so on, until the beginning of next year.” So what we have from the other side is leadership under “flashback Brash” or “back-in-a-flash Brash” of a say nothing, do nothing party.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the member’s speech but as was pointed out during the snap debate earlier this afternoon, it is appropriate if members are referred to by their correct title.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I was just about to remind the speaker.

All we have heard from National is: “Wait and see. We’ll tell you in time”. But what have the New Zealand public heard from the National Party? Nothing. In September Dr Brash and his advisers said they were holding fire. It certainly looks like they are holding fire, because they have no bullets in their gun to shoot. It is a very sad track record. What we have seen throughout the whole of this year under Dr Brash’s leadership is backtracking and flip-flopping. They do not know where they are going. They lack inspiration and have no direction. We really do not know what they are on about.

However, this Government has made many improvements since 1999. Māori unemployment is down from 18 percent to under 9 percent. More Māori are in training and employment in our communities. We have made real changes. More Māori are pursuing development aspirations. More Māori are in better housing. More Māori are receiving better health-care. More Māori have better employment opportunities. These improvements do not relate just to Māori but to Pacific Island people and low-income people. We see that as achieving real outcomes in our communities.

What do we hear from members opposite? We hear only criticism. They have no vision, no ideas, just silence. They are silent, because everybody is supposed to wait until next year for the Opposition to say what a National Government would do. The Opposition cannot put forward one good idea of what it proposes and how it proposes to benefit the public of New Zealand. That is a sad track record, especially so late into this term under the leadership of Dr Brash. In fact, one of the most innovative changes for Māori has been the emergence of Māori Television. That is one of the most positive things that has happened, but the Opposition says that a National Government would scrap it. The Opposition does not even want to see it continue. That is a sad indictment on Opposition members. They have no direction for this country.

From time to time I ask myself what I am doing here as a member of Parliament, what I ought to be doing, and what we in New Zealand First as an Opposition should be telling the Government it should be doing. One of the obvious examples that we have at the moment is the failure of this Government to do anything about this refugee, Ahmed Zaoui. I will read from the decision of the Court of Appeal and Justice Glazebrook, who refers to this person. I quote from paragraph 165, where she refers to: “ … Mr Zaoui’s Algerian convictions, the decisions declining him refugee status in Belgium, the Belgian and French convictions, the deportation from Switzerland, non-classified information provided by the SIS, newspaper reports linking Mr Zaoui to the GIA in Algeria and other armed groups, and an alleged admission as to membership by Mr Zaoui on arrival in New Zealand.” One wonders why this person is in New Zealand. Those comments are from Justice Glazebrook in talking about this person who is regarded as a refugee in New Zealand.

💬 Keith Locke: You’re not telling the truth.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] That member is lying.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

I am speaking the truth. I am quoting from the judge’s decision. I ask that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the member to please be seated—

I am asking him to withdraw and apologise—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am going to ask the member to do something—

💬 Keith Locke: Point of order—

I am speaking the truth. I am quoting from Justice Glazebrook’s decision. The Greens just cannot take it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The justice upheld the Refugee Appeals—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will sit down when I am standing up.

💬 Keith Locke: I am sorry.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I should say so. The next time the member wants to speak, he should make a call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member said I was not speaking the truth. I am quoting the words of Justice Glazebrook. She referred to this person as having “… Algerian convictions … Belgian and French convictions … deportation from Switzerland …” I am quoting from the judgment. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise, because I am telling the truth and he said I was not. He is not entitled to say that I am not telling the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. We will dispose of that. I did not hear what Mr Locke said, but if the speaker on his feet thought that that is what was said, then I ask the member to withdraw.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, no. I ask the member whether he said that to Mr Jones.

💬 Keith Locke: My interjection—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes or no?

💬 Keith Locke: Not on its own, I said he was not telling the truth—no.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Did the member use those words, at all?

💬 Keith Locke: I cannot remember the exact words I said. If I said words that were reflecting on his honesty—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member withdraw and apologise?

💬 Keith Locke: —I withdraw and apologise, yes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was quoting from Justice Glazebrook’s decision, page 165, if that member would care to read it. The Greens, of course, are not interested in the truth of these matters in that respect.

Of course, the important thing about Justice Glazebrook’s decision is that she came down to the situation where I believe we are seeing incompetence on the part of the Labour Party. To put it in simple terms, Justice Glazebrook has said that if Zaoui is a threat to the national security of countries overseas, he might be able to stay in New Zealand. What the inspector-general has to establish is whether Zaoui is a threat to the national security of New Zealand. That is an extraordinary situation to be in. Mr Locke now agrees with me—which is the point I was coming to.

Here we have a person, Ahmed Zaoui, whose risks to this country have been listed by Justice Glazebrook, but we have to establish that Mr Zaoui is a risk, perhaps, to Australia, to Fiji, to New Caledonia or to Tahiti before—according to current law and according to Justice Glazebrook’s present interpretation—he can be deported. If I were an Australian, a Fijian or a Tahitian, and I knew that Mr Zaoui was living in my country, that he was the leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), that he was charged in and expelled from Switzerland because of a massacre of Swiss tourists in North Africa, and that he left South-east Asia shortly after the Bali bombings—which is when he came to New Zealand to find another spot to live in—I would try to eliminate him. There is no doubt about the matter.

Why have someone who is a terrorist living safely in New Zealand? The courts of New Zealand say that he is not a threat to our security, even though he might be a threat to the security of Australia, Fiji, or somewhere else—and that, in my view, makes him a threat to the national security of New Zealand. But if there is any doubt about it, I say to the Labour Party that we should have legislation before us tomorrow to tidy up this loophole. Instead of the Labour Party bringing in civil union bills and spending time on prostitution reform bills, and instead of it being sidetracked on John Tamihere, it should be making sure that we are safe in New Zealand.

This Ahmed Zaoui is a man whose political party in Algeria was funded by Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was supported by a Saudi Arabian multimillionaire—there is one of those in Afghanistan whom they are looking for right now—and the FIS is the party to which Zaoui belongs. He is a person about whom ArabicNews.com says: “Ahmed Zaoui, a leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) which is largely blamed for massacres of civilians in Algeria, has slipped into Switzerland and requested asylum.”

💬 Keith Locke: Who’s saying that?

It says “ArabicNews.com”. He is a well-known terrorist, an absolutely well-known terrorist, and he was thrown out of Switzerland because of the massacre of Swiss citizens in North Africa and, of course, we know how that was funded. Now, if Zaoui was a good bloke, he could have gone back to Algeria, because the leaders of the FIS, Mr Madani and Mr Belhadj have been released. They did not commit massacres, but clearly Zaoui after he left Algeria was involved with massacres.

I say to the Labour Party that it has to bring in legislation urgently to deal with this bloke, because otherwise there is a serious possibility that the inspector-general’s certificate will be challenged, and we have had a clear warning from the Court of Appeal of the problems that could ensue. Would any member here want to live next door to someone who might be taken out by some other person from another country? I certainly do not, so that is our responsibility.

As the member for Hamilton West, I want to place on record the great sense of privilege I have to work with someone of the calibre of “JT”—John Tamihere. He is, in my view, a great example of a decent bloke who has cared for this country, and I believe he has much to contribute to our nation in the future. Unlike the people in the Opposition, he is not a hater and he is not a wrecker.

I listened very closely to the previous speaker, Dail Jones, who, as we all know, had a previous incarnation in this Parliament, in a different era in our country’s history. I looked at his body language during the contribution made earlier this afternoon by Dr Brash. I also looked at Winston Peter’s body language, and that of other New Zealand First MPs. I know that Dail and I obviously do not agree on a heck of a lot, but Dail could not have enjoyed the experience of seeing the leader of a once broad-based and proud party—a party he was once a member of—go through the motions that we witnessed this afternoon. Dail Jones’s body language was not the only body language that spoke volumes. He is a member of a different party from National, obviously, but one could sense that sense of pity and concern.

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is hard for me to take exception on my own behalf, so I take exception on behalf of Mr Dail Jones to the greasy familiarity that the member on his feet is using in relation to Mr Jones. The member keeps talking about looking across the Chamber and observing Mr Jones’s demeanour. Well, I can see Mr Jones looking absolutely mortified at being brought into the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That matter should not have been raised.

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is a convention in this House that the Speaker intervenes when other members are referred to by their first names, or in a familiar fashion that is not invited. I believe that Mr Jones did not invite that reference.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I agree that the full name should have been used. There was at least one instance when Mr Gallagher used Mr Jones’s Christian name only, and he should not have done so. Please continue.

As I said, obviously I do not agree with a number of Mr Jones’s views—

💬 Simon Power: What is the point of all this?

The point is that he was once a member of a great, proud party, formerly led by Keith Holyoake, Jack Marshall, and Sid Holland, and we can see what it has become now. That is the point. In terms of democracy in this country, it is sad to see one of our broad-based, former mainstream parties go down the tubes because of incompetent, diffident leadership. I was an admirer of Keith Holyoake as a young chap growing up in Hamilton, and to see that gives even me grief.

The Opposition should make Winston Peters an offer he cannot refuse and put him out of his misery. But, more important, the Opposition should put Dr Brash out of his misery. If ever there was an embarrassment, and if ever we were cringing, then today was that day. I was looking at the body language of the Opposition members, and I just knew that they were cringing. Even Ron Mark, who is no friend of the National Party at the best of times, wanted to get out the smelling salts. Even he wanted to offer humanitarian assistance, because even he had a sense of embarrassment. Why have I been accused of being familiar as far as Dail Jones is concerned? Because I respect history. I actually respect someone who has significant parliamentary experience and who actually sat in this House during a different era, and I know what Dail Jones must be thinking in his heart of hearts. Actually, it confirms to me why he moved on to New Zealand First, and in that sense I respect him.

I will quote from my own local newspaper, the Waikato Times, which is a middle-of-the-road paper. It is certainly no friend of the Government, but it is no friend of the Opposition, either—it plays it very much down the middle. It had a very interesting editorial on 28 September about Don Brash’s decision to shelve a planned series of king hit speeches. The editor of the Waikato Times, one of our major daily papers in New Zealand, with a major circulation, stated: “Is it clever politicking or simply a lack of guts? Whatever way Don Brash’s decision to shelve a planned series of ‘king-hit’ speeches this year is viewed, it is clear he has taken a huge gamble. By canning the speeches—that were to focus on major policies such as welfare, the foreshore and seabed and employment relations—the National Party leader now risks having his abilities judged solely on his performance in the House—the very area in which he is weakest.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As someone who is utterly passionate about health, I am a bit concerned. We should get the medics in to see to that poor member.

That is not a point of order. It should not have been raised.

This debate is customarily used for rebuttal. It is one of the few genuine debates we get in the House when people take up points that have been raised previously. I want to deal with something that was raised in the House earlier today but not in this debate. The Minister of Agriculture answered a question about the costs of crime to the rural community, the costs of the precautions rural families have to take, and the change in the culture and climate of rural areas, which have gone from being one of the proudest exhibits of Godzone—we thought we had the best way of living in the world—to being an area that people are now moving from. The Minister of Agriculture’s answer to a genuine question—whether he had an idea of those costs and whether he had inquired about the sustainability of farming in areas where stock is now treated as a public asset for marauders to prey on—was: “I do not support the member’s bill to allow the shooting of trespassers.”

My bill does not authorise the shooting of trespassers. It is a careful bill, designed to restore a state of law that this country enjoyed until only 25 years ago. It is designed to restore the effect of a defence that every New Zealander thought until 1980 was automatic common sense. In fact, pretty much every New Zealander still thinks it is automatic common sense; it is the justice establishment, and the politically correct Ministers of this Government who think it is laughable, ludicrous, or outrageous.

My bill would tell people that what 80 percent of them are already doing is OK. Eighty percent of law-abiding, decent, hard-working farmers say they would use a weapon to defend themselves and their property if necessary. The bill says that what ordinary, decent people think should happen should be the law. What we have in our rural areas now is an international anomaly. In no other country surveyed by the International Crime Victim Surveys is crime dramatically higher in provincial and rural areas than it is in the centre of the big cities. New Zealand is alone in having more crime in its provinces than in its cities.

There is a simple reason for that. We now expect lawful defenders of their own homes and property to dither, to carefully calibrate their proportionate response, to wonder what a court might hold later, and to wonder whether they are going to be bankrupted or lose their entire livelihood and their families, instead of acting on the simple, intuitive, and rational response of threatening unreasonable force. One simple thing that every code on defence and every military treatise says about defence is that it is not a matter of slowly and in a very carefully calibrated way elevating the hostilities. The best method of defence is to threaten an unreasonable response so that the only sensible thing for the aggressor to do is run away, stop what he or she is doing, and get out of it. That is the one thing our law says they cannot do.

The one thing our law now says is that—just get a load of this—people may use force but may not strike or harm a trespasser stealing their property. What kind of force is the law talking about? The only way we can find out is by going to court. That is exactly what the Attorney-General insists happens time after time. Common-sense juries discharge these poor victims. Common-sense juries acquit in more than eight out of 10 cases. Our justice system should take a message from that. Precedents should apply. One would think that the police would be allowed not to prosecute when they lose eight out of 10 cases, but the Crown Law Office sends to court the poor devils who have already been traumatised. In McIntyre’s case, 2 years later he is going through a second trial. The cost to him is enormous. He will not get out of this for under $300,000 or $400,000 in costs. No one will compensate him when he is finally acquitted; there will be no reimbursement to Mr McIntyre. The real victims are the defenders.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.