General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There was a 19th century US presidential candidate who ran on the slogan “Forty-four forty or fight”. Well, for National, the poll is now 50:30, and there is still no fight from the members opposite in the National Party. It is not often that a major political leader gets to write his own epitaph, but Dr Brash did just that earlier this year, when he said: “I’ll be leader until the ratings go down.” Well, the ratings have gone down, and the time has come for Dr Brash to move along and for there to be another leader of the National Party—no doubt, Mr Gerry Brownlee. Why—[Interruption] Indeed, whenever Mr McCully is not actually— I cannot quite say that, but when he may be somewhere else, it is usually because he is counting the numbers for the next leadership coup.

Why has National got into the parlous state that it is now in? In one word, it is weak—weak as a party, and weak as an Opposition. In two words, it flip-flops. It has flip-flopped on every issue of any significance. In three words, it has no new ideas. And so, in four words, it is time for a change. National’s strategy has combined five fatal ingredients: firstly, the moral strength and purpose of Murray McCully, secondly, the firm hand of Tony Ryall, thirdly, the stability and reliability of Nick Smith, fourthly, the intellect of Gerry Brownlee, and finally, the oratorical skills of Dr Brash himself. With all that, the wonder is that the party still had 30 percent support in the latest opinion poll. Of course, Dr Brash took solace in the fact that the latest poll indicated what he called “volatility and fluctuation”. He almost sounded comfortable with the result. The problem is, as his great hero Sir Roger Douglas once said, it is volatility around a downwards trend. That is exactly what is happening to the National Party. The National Party now reminds me, for the benefit of those of us who watch such things, of the latest Steriogram video—the one where they are driving along in a Triumph 2000 and bits keep flying off the car. Eventually, all the passengers float out of the car, as well, and disappear and float around in the air in a purposeless fashion. That is what the National Party is up to.

Now that National has a clear record of flip-flops, it is trying to avoid further damage. Firstly, the National members had the great speech programme. In January there were to be five main speeches on five main topics. By September there had been one, and they decided to wait until next year before having any more of them, because the speeches were so good we had to wait for them. The truth, of course, is that those members cannot agree on the content of the speeches. Secondly, there was the superannuation flip-flop. What a doozy! It was a better retreat than Rommel ever organised in the North African desert. National’s leader said the Superannuation Fund was all smoke and mirrors, and that it was a serious mistake. Nothing has changed, as Mr Hide rightly said—except for the National Party’s position. The National members now support a mistake that is all smoke and mirrors. Well, if those members support Dr Brash, of course they support a mistake that is all smoke and mirrors! What they meant was that their leader has been rolled by John Key. On the Civil Union Bill, only a week ago Dr Brash was saying firmly on Radio Rhema that he was not willing to prostitute his conscience for any vote, and that if that meant voting for something that was unpopular or against something that was popular, then so be it. One week later Dr Brash’s only reason for changing his mind was that he thought his position may be unpopular. He had no other reason at all for that, and he did not even tell his caucus that he was going to make the announcement in that particular respect. So much for the strength of purpose that Dr Brash was supposed to represent!

The National members are all over the show on tax cuts. They give the impression, in their body language, that they will have tax cuts—but for whom? It used to be for the rich, but then John Key said that was not good politics, so he persuaded Dr Brash to say it would be for middle-income earners.” Then John Key said the tax cuts had to be for the rich. They both then said there had to be a cut in the corporate tax rate. Next, they both said that tax cuts had to wait until they saw the numbers from me, and then that they would have them anyway. Then they tried to have it all ways—that they would pay down debt, have tax cuts and have extra expenditure on health and everything else. National is a disaster as a party at the present time.

That was a speech from the Acting Prime Minister—the most Acting Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history. Dr Cullen is the Acting Prime Minister who has stepped into that role 47 times in the last 60 months.

💬 Opposition Member: What?

That is right—47 times in the last 60 months, as the Prime Minister has continued her travelogue around the world. What an interesting speech we had from the Deputy Prime Minister today. Once again there was not one hint from Labour of where it wants to take this country, because of the embarrassment it has about the real agenda it is producing for New Zealanders. Labour talks about flip-flops, but it should look at the flip-flop on the closure of schools. There was a little bit of public pressure, and Trevor Mallard buckled like a cripple and gave up on that policy. Members should look at the reaction to Dr Brash’s Ōrewa speech earlier this year. The Prime Minister, in complete panic, announced that once again Trevor Mallard was to conduct a review of all the Government departments. Then there was a further flip-flop by not actually doing that at all, and then finally there was a retreat to some sort of special constitutional matters select committee in order to take the issue off the agenda.

This is not a Government that has a clear idea of where New Zealand should be heading. It is a Government that is massively overtaxing every worker in this country, and Dr Cullen can say what he likes. In the last 5 years those guys have taken an extra $34 billion out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders, and even Jim Anderton, the great champion of the people, knows that it is time to put something back. Alongside that, there has been absolutely no significant movement in household income throughout that time. Labour members may sit in the House feeling secure at the moment, but they should know that in suburban New Zealand their agenda is not going down well. Households are struggling in this country—everyone knows that. Everyone who has an electorate office—Mr Samuels, in particular—knows that, and furthermore it will not be long before many of Labour’s other deceptions are found out.

I just think that we need to look at a few things that are happening in this country. We have no choice in schools—no choice in where we can send our kids. We have a Government that wants to tell us where we can do things, when we can do them, and how we can do them, and we have a police force that is much more interested in focusing on minor crime than it is in solving some of the big issues that are out there. It does not matter how much Dr Cullen may like to attack the National Party; the reality is that Labour stands for very, very little that ordinary New Zealanders identify with. If the Labour members think that one poll result will somehow be enough to put us off, they are seriously wrong. I remind Mr Mallard that no one in the Labour Party was making bold claims for polling being so accurate in April of this year.

We say that this country will soon wake up and realise that we have a Prime Minister who never faces up to the big issues, and never wants to be around on a day when something is going to happen. Where was Helen Clark during the whole of the foreshore and seabed debate? She was off having shots taken in front of the Taj Mahal. Where is Helen Clark during the debate on the Civil Union Bill? She is nowhere to be seen. Where was Helen Clark during the speeding incident from Waimate to Christchurch? What were she and Jim Sutton doing in the back seat that did not let them understand that the car was going at such horrendous speed? How can a Prime Minister sit by and watch five policemen go before the courts for doing her business, and a civilian driver be dragged before the courts to pay the same price? When she got out of the car and knew that she would be able to get to the rugby test, I wonder whether she said to the driver: “Thanks very much.”? I bet she did! She was quite happy to have been driven at high speed and then to dump on those police officers.

For those folks at home that was Mr Gerry Brownlee, the Hardy of the Laurel and Hardy team that currently leads the National Party. Writing in that outstanding journal the New Zealand Herald, John Armstrong recently said to the National Party: “Don’t panic yet—that is my advice.” I have some quite different advice for the National Party today, and my advice is: panic now. My advice is to run screaming through the corridors. My advice is to start wearing a placard that states on both sides: “The end is nigh”. My advice is: panic now. What else is there for the National Party to do?

Labour is now 50 percent in the polls, and National is 30 percent in the polls. Helen Clark is 57 percent in the polls, and Don Brash is 20 percent in the polls. Even if the party and Mr Brash are put together, they still cannot add up to more than the Labour Party’s rating. Unemployment is 3.8 percent, growth is over 4 percent, we are in the top half of the OECD for the well-being of our people, every single region is growing in this country, and New Zealanders like living here. They like it.

It is not just the achievements of New Zealanders that we ought to be proud of, and note that they are the reason Labour is doing so well. The reason we are doing so well is that National is doing so little. Its leader, especially, is doing so little. He does little to lead, but he does a lot of “er”. I have seen him do that part of the leadership role, but he does not do much leading at all. The only bit of so-called leadership was the Ōrewa speech, which was one of the most disgusting examples of trying to calculatedly divide New Zealanders over the race issue that this country has ever seen—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why have you changed policy?

—and I tell Nick Smith that New Zealanders have now rejected that thinking resoundingly. It did not pay off. People thought there was something going on, but there were no policies to back it up and no arguments to follow through. Nothing happened after that calculated speech to divide New Zealanders against each other.

So now what does he do? He goes to the provinces, but no one is interested. He comes back here and no one is interested here, either. So he disappears from one place to the other, unable to foot it, unseen, and, as a result, he is plummeting in the polls. He himself said: “When my ratings drop, I’ll go.” National members need to panic, as they did when the once-great National Party put a person into leadership who had been in this House for only 16 months. They are now paying the price. They should panic over policy.

We were promised policy and on this side of the House we kind of looked forward to it. People like Pete Hodgson eat policy for breakfast. We love policy. We want to have a debate. We like it. But what did we get? We got the promise of race, economy, welfare, education, tax, and security, but we do not have one single policy to argue with. In fact, the National Party has become so desperate about policy that it has taken to announcing our policy. So now it has announced that its superannuation policy is our policy. What we can expect from now on from the National Party is that on the economy, on welfare, on security, and on tax its members will just get up and resoundingly announce Labour policy. That will be the position they will take from now on.

💬 John Key: You’ll be waiting a long time.

Looking across the House I see John Key, who is the great hope of the National Party. He is supposed to be delivering his tax package on how the National Party will have superannuation policies like ours and cut taxes. We cannot wait to hear what he has to say.

National has become so desperate that Don Brash has shown how low he can go. Don Brash has demonstrated, in relation to the Civil Union Bill, that not only does he have no leadership and no policy, but also that he has no principle. He had said that he wanted to vote for the Civil Union Bill on principle. The reason that he now will not vote for it is that he does not like the procedure by which the bill is being passed through the House. He is gone.

In case anybody is wondering, that speech was made by Steve Maharey, who was enhancing his reputation for approaching every issue in this House with an open mouth rather than an open mind.

For the last 4 weeks or so I have been touring the heartland of New Zealand in ACT’s bright yellow bus and I have been talking to the real New Zealanders who want to listen—but not to the claptrap we have just heard from that Minister. My journey has taken me all over this country where rural New Zealanders, heartland New Zealanders, and peri-urban New Zealanders want a party to stand up and fight for their property rights, and, goodness me, they have that in the ACT party.

The people of this nation are outraged at this Government’s proposal to steal their property rights. Their personal security will be gone, biosecurity will be gone, and property security will be gone when that legislation finally reaches the House.

I tell the Government that the farming community, property owners, and the forestry community are not prepared to stand back and see their property rights taken by this Government. Even the mild-mannered people out in the provinces are now saying that there will be civil disobedience. They say they will not allow this to happen. These people simply want to retain their property rights. They want the right to say no to a busload of tourists or whoever it might be. They want the right to say: “No, you cannot enter my property, for these reasons.” The Government is hell-bent on taking that right away.

I learnt one thing very quickly on that tour: this issue will be a major vote-loser for the Government. It is absolutely certain that David Parker, for example, who is the constituent member for Otago—not that anybody knows that—is toast. If the legislation is passed, he will be toast. In Ashburton, for example, we hosted 80 people who turned up at short notice to voice their opposition to the legislation. Not one Government member would dare surface to attend those meetings to give the Government’s point of view, although one of its lackeys did attend and told the meeting: “Well, we are going to exclude Māori land from this land grab because we don’t want another Māori land war.” Eighty or 90 people heard that woman—Julia somebody or other—say that that was the case.

In Blenheim, 200 people lined up to hear what I had to say. I asked members of the public whether they would care to give us their views over the microphone on the yellow ACT bus. People lined up. There must have been a dozen of them, and half of them were women. The legislation will impact on rural women more than anybody else. It was rather poignant to turn up to a meeting and see Mrs Agnes Nicholas sitting in the audience nodding her head in approval. She was nodding her head about the outrage coming from this Government.

There was a nice little incident at the A and P show in Christchurch. This fellow said to me: “Gerry, rural New Zealand now believes in the ABC of politics.” I said: “What on earth is that?”. He said: “Anybody but Clark.” That is the attitude in the provinces. We will get rid of her. We are delighted to support the people who believe that socialism has to go.

In Taumarunui—a small town in the King Country—175 people turned out to hear what the ACT party had to say, and they applauded us. Just a couple of days ago in Masterton, 100 people turned up and they condemned the Government. Their representative, the new candidate for the Wairarapa, said that she did not believe in property rights.

Let me tell the House what the Government is about to be called. During the war years there was a man called Quisling, from Norway. He was regarded as a collaborator and a traitor. The people of rural New Zealand are calling Jim Sutton a quisling. They are telling me that he has collaborated with the Government and no longer stands up for the people he should be supporting.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That word has been ruled out previously, and the member should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, I was calling for order. The member will please withdraw and apologise.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I am merely repeating what rural heartland New Zealand has said. I did not refer to the Minister as a quisling; I am merely repeating what has been said out there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The fact is that it was said in the House, and I, on behalf of the House, take objection. The member will please withdraw and apologise.

I mean no disrespect to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, nor the Chair, but I cannot withdraw and apologise for speaking the truth in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes the member can.

I guess that is my choice, and my choice is to say “No, sir, I cannot.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is not a matter of whether it is the truth. It was clearly offensive in the House, in the way that the member said it. That is the way I took it, and that is why objection has been raised to it. I simply ask the member to withdraw and apologise, please.

I regret, Mr Assistant Speaker, I cannot.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has a number of seconds left but I am not willing to allow him to have them.

This is a sad occasion. I will not comment further on the member, but I think it is sad that he cannot find it in his heart to follow the Chair on the matter.

I want to refer to the person whom I expected to be leading the National Party in this debate. That is Dr Don Brash. I am tempted to use the words of the senior Government whip and say: “Bring out your dead.”, but I will not do that. I will use the words Dr Brash said, only a month or so ago: “If I deliver, I am secure; if I don’t deliver, I’m history.” He is history. He said that when his ratings dropped, he would go. I suggest, for the sake of National Party, that it is now time for Dr Brash to go.

In fact, the speculation around the country is now not “if” but “when” and “who”. I am tempted to agree with the sign that my colleague from New Zealand First has put up, which states: “Bring back Bill”. That is one of the options for the National Party. I want to canvass a number of options because I am contemplating running a sweepstake with a couple of legs. The first leg would be to pick the leader and the deputy. The second would be to pick the timing of the National Party change. I think the timing is still likely to be September or October of 2005. There are odds of about 3:2 on that particular time, but the odds are still 8:1 for this year, and 4:1 that the National Party will get its act together before Parliament is fully going next year.

But the most interesting thing in all of the debate around the gallery and around the caucuses is who it will be. I agree that one of the clear favourites is Bill English—“Bring back Bill”—and the sweepstake will have Mr English, coupled with John Key as his deputy, at 5:2. That is the equal-favourite combination—the other is Mr John Key with Mr Brownlee as his deputy, which will also be at 5:2. While I appreciate Georgina te Heuheu’s suggestion that she might be included in the odds, I think that might be stretching realism a bit.

I will say that the outside odds in my poll are a relatively unusual combination: Pansy Wong as leader, and Winston Peters as deputy, at 10,000:1. I think we are relatively safe as far as that combination is concerned. I have speculated on the possibility that the National Party will forgive, and that Winston Peters will forget and go back to be its leader. It would be a good thing for National, although I have suggested that it is much more likely that it will reach out to the very experienced, the very able, rejected Mayor of Auckland, John Banks, in order to get him back into the House to provide some leadership.

I have indicated that Bill English could be 3:1 when coupled with Gerry Brownlee. I think that going back to some brains and some brawn, or some brains and activity, and some brawn, on the National Party leadership bench could be a good idea. I have suggested that Katherine Rich, in fact, could be, at 3:1, the deputy for Bill English. I think the National Party is a liberal group, and although it will be very hard for it to think of the idea of having two women within a decade, even if not in the same millennium, in a leadership role in its party, it is not beyond the realms of possibility. I considered the possibility of putting Mr Prebble in there, but he has assured me that he is not available for the role, and I took him at his word. We contemplated Simon Power, but he has floated out to 5:1.

Is that the best Labour could do—that little pathetic effort just now? It was not even funny. I want to know why we have not heard from any Māori members today. Why have we not heard from any Māori members today? Because the latest poll shows that they will be gone. Of the seven Labour Māori members, the Television One Marae-DigiPoll showed that five of them will be gone. Now I suspect that is why we are not hearing from the Māori members. We heard Dr Cullen gloating, and Mr Maharey gloating. But of those Māori members the poll shows that Mr John Tamihere over there may be OK—that is providing the inquiries into what he has been up to are OK—and that Nanaia Mahuta may be OK, but the rest of them are gone.

Now what makes them more grumpy is that Helen’s favourite, Shane Jones, will be put higher on the list than those other Māori members, so those other Māori members are very, very grumpy. They are very grumpy because the poll shows that they will be gone.

It is all very well to have members of this Labour Government today gloating over a good poll result; I accept that it was a good poll result for them. But it was not a good result for its Māori members, of course. It was a good poll for the white members of the Labour Party today, but not so good for the Māori members. What they should remember is this. Polls go up and polls can go down very fast. Remember one little word—Ōrewa. Ōrewa is in my electorate. I was there. I saw what happened, and I saw this Labour Government, not just flip-flop after Ōrewa, but this Labour Government turned damn somersaults after Ōrewa. It turned somersaults. It thinks it has conned the public of New Zealand that it will no longer have racially biased legislation. It thinks it has convinced the public of that. Well, the public is not stupid. With the foreshore and seabed legislation gone through, and as we start to see the claims for iwi reserves, or whatever they are going to be, on the foreshore, the people of New Zealand will see the con job that has been hatched on them.

The people of New Zealand will get tired of this controlling Government not allowing parents to choose where their children go to school. They will get tired of this Government controlling how much money middle-income earners can earn. They will find that effective marginal tax rates on families and middle-income New Zealand are up around the 80, 90, and 95 percent mark. This Government controls the amount of money that middle-income earners in New Zealand will get in their pockets. People will start to see that and get tired of it. They will get tired of this Government taking so much in taxes.

People in rural New Zealand will get tired of the challenge to their property rights. It has just been revealed to me regarding the big controversy over access across rural land, that where the Government has not been prepared to say exactly what the final policy will be, it has come out of a meeting in Blenheim in the last couple of weeks that the Prime Minister’s office has been asking people from the Fish and Game Council—an agency funded by State regulation—to write letters to the Prime Minister supporting the outrageous land access issue the Government is pushing. It verges on being corrupt, when a State-backed agency is encouraged by the Prime Minister’s office to write letters to the Prime Minister’s office to show huge support for the property rights issue across rural land.

That will be made public. It was revealed at a public meeting in Blenheim. The Prime Minister is being asked to explain herself right now. That is the kind of thing that New Zealanders will finally grow tired of. They see that when the Labour Prime Minister is in trouble she will not even take accountability for herself. She let the police carry the can for her own speeding offences. That is the measure of our Prime Minister.

There is a man who thinks that if one yells louder one is listened to more. That has never been the case with Lockwood Smith. He has never managed to attract a lot of support from this side of the House, because he tends to get his facts wrong.

Here are a few facts that he got wrong in the last 5 minutes. He said that all the Māori electorate members would lose their seats. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I am a student of polls of Māori electorates, and my opinion is that all current Māori electorate MPs will retain their seats. That is my view. Secondly, the Fish and Game Council does not get any money from the Government, and members should reflect on that.

Let us talk not only about the member’s mistakes but about the member’s party. The member’s party is now undecided, it is divided, and it is derided. In fact, the leader of the National Party used to be indecisive, but now he is not so sure. That goes right across the party. Indecision is absolutely throughout the party. That is why it is derided. The U-turn on superannuation was surprise enough; the U-turn by the leader of the National Party on civil unions was remarkable indeed. This is a man who said a week ago that he would not cast his conscience vote on the basis of public popularity—that if his vote was unpopular, he would cast it anyway. Within a week he turned and said he would not be supporting the civil union legislation, because there was a bit of a problem in the National Party heartland. The National Party heartland is small enough as it is, so one can assume that the leader was keen for it not to be any smaller. That is how he has deployed his conscience vote. I do not think that is a good look. There are a whole lot of words for it but I had better not dwell on them.

The National Party used to be a little more sure about how it would roll out policy. It did the Ōrewa speech for brown people, then it did the law and order speech for bad people. Then it was going to do the education speech for young people, the health speech for sick people, and the social welfare speech for poor people. It got the brown people done—it does not like them. It got the bad people done—it does not like them, either. Then it stopped. It could have done the sick people, whom it would like, and the young people, whom it would like, and the poor people, whom it would not like. It could have done that, but it stopped. It did two out of five then stopped. Then the National Party said it would get started again, then it changed its mind. Then the National Party said it would get started again, then it changed its mind. Recently, there were hints that it would get started again, but it had better hurry up because it is 1 December already and people are getting ready for the beach.

So why did National stop? What happened? What was the big strategic decision? It seems to me that the best answer is that Don Brash needed to keep his powder dry, because if the powder got wet and he was still doing no good, he was gone.

💬 John Key: Let’s talk about the energy crisis.

Let us talk about energy. I ask whether the National Party has delivered an energy policy yet. In April this year Roger Sowry, the National spokesperson on energy, said it would have one this year, and it is now 1 December. Where is it? It is 1 December this year, and still there is no energy policy, even though the National Opposition spokesperson on energy said in April that National would have an energy policy this year. Is that indecision or is National simply divided? Can it not make up its mind or is it divided? [Interruption]

Mr Key is getting distressed. He does not like being told the truth. I tell Mr Key that the long and the short of it is that I have just had a look at the options Trevor Mallard has put for the future leadership and deputy leadership of the National Party. Mr Key should not be so harsh on me. I have voted him as deputy leader to Gerry Brownlee. He should not yell at me, because I might change my vote. I do not think that member should look a gift horse in the mouth. What is more, that particular combination is paying 4:1. It looks quite popular. The member should reflect, take a look at his future behaviour, and make sure he does not yell too much. He might find himself in a leadership position. There will be a change soon. There has to be a change sometime. A person whose party now polls 30.8 percent, him having said: “If I go down in the polls it is my fault.”, cannot then say, as quoted in this morning’s New Zealand Herald, that it is just volatility.

The preceding speaker mentioned something about leadership. There is absolutely no doubt about the leadership coming from New Zealand First. It is consistent, strong, and effective. Currently, we are seeing New Zealand First lead the issue on the Civil Union Bill. We are prepared to ensure that all New Zealanders have a say on the Civil Union Bill. We want a referendum on this issue. We are prepared to support a referendum. All 13 New Zealand First members support a referendum. Where is Labour on a referendum? It does not want the people to have a chance. Jill Pettis does not want the people to have a voice. No way does Labour want the people of New Zealand to express their views on the Civil Union Bill!

Of course, United Future gave the game away. When it signed the agreement with Labour it should have made it clear that the Civil Union Bill, which was a Labour Party election manifesto promise, was not to be included in this year’s legislation. However, we will debate the Civil Union Bill later on because United Future has let it happen.

On the question of leadership, the Civil Union Bill is one issue today. The other issue, of course, is the debacle over Zaoui. Labour will be carrying the can for Zaoui. Two years ago it put that man in Mount Eden Prison. Two years ago it said that man was a danger to the country. We know that as long ago as 29 November 1997, CNN.com and ArabicNews.com reported: “Ahmed Zaoui, a leader of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, which is largely blamed for massacres of civilians in Algeria, has slipped into Switzerland and requested asylum.”

That man is a known Armed Islamic Group (GIA) leader and terrorist, but could the Labour Party Government run a case to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to have that guy declared not to be a refugee? No, it could not. Its handling of the matter was appalling. Could the Labour Party Government win even any section of the court cases that have gone through the courts? No. It says that it has all this information. Helen Clark, as Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service, has said that she has all this information about Zaoui. Has she succeeded? No, she has been an utter failure in so far as those cases are concerned.

Yet, in all that space of time, Zaoui has accumulated $1.5 million in taxpayers’ expenses as he has sat in jail. If the Labour Party Government was any good at its job he would have been on the next plane by December 2002. Instead, the Labour Party Government has let this person hang on in New Zealand interminably.

We have an incompetent Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service, but we have had an even more incompetent succession of Ministers of Immigration. They have allowed 966 refugee-status claimants to enter New Zealand, despite the fact those people’s travel documents were false, or had been lost or destroyed.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Since when!

Since 1 January 2001 to 19 November 2004. The member interjecting was a Minister of Immigration. I received that information just in the last few days in answer to a written question. No wonder Lianne Dalziel is on the back benches, and no wonder Paul Swain is going to join her shortly!

It is no wonder Helen Clark is not in New Zealand to face the music. When the Supreme Court lets Zaoui out on bail, he possibly will go to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, where there are other Muslims—young Muslims. All they are looking for is a leader, and Zaoui, a GIA terrorist leader, will be put in their midst. What an explosive mixture! It will be allowed by this Labour Government’s failure to represent New Zealand’s interests in any court, even in the Court of Appeal but especially in the Supreme Court.

Helen Clark is hoisting the white flag on this issue. We can all see it now. She is an incompetent Minister in charge of the SIS. New Zealand First has tried to give some leadership on this issue. We have said to her that there is a deficiency in the Immigration Act and that we are prepared to support the Government, under urgency, to amend it immediately. But the Labour Party Government is not going to amend the law now; it will do so after the bird has flown. Then it will amend the Immigration Act. What is the point of that? The Government should take the opportunity to change the law while we still have the bird in the hand, while the horse is still in the stable. Once it has bolted—once Zaoui is free—the Labour Party Government will change the law. What a ridiculous means of running this country!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Was this member a lawyer?

I was a lawyer, but that member was never a teacher—that is for sure! I ask whether the Government will supply the classified information to the Supreme Court. Will it find out what has happened to the 500 missing refugees whose documents were lost?

Mr Speaker, we have just heard from the party that leads the Opposition in this House, and as you would say: “It’s a bit of a worry, really, isn’t it?”.

I think it is important to concentrate on what has been happening through the past year. After all, we are getting to that time of the year where it is probably sensible to take a review of our performance. I know that, certainly, the Government is doing that and has been reviewing it, and in our excellent conference we gave to the country an accounting of our performance, and we also set out how we are going to lead it in the future.

I know, of course, that National must also be doing some accounting of its performance. Certainly, it is obvious from not only the latest poll but, now, a series of polls—and all serious politicians know that one does not take notice of a single poll; we certainly do not, and we are serious politicians—that a certain trend is developing. The trend has obviously been that the people of New Zealand have made their judgment for this year, certainly, on the National Party.

They have also made their judgment on its leader, and the decision that has been made on the National Party comes as no surprise when one reflects upon the leadership of that party. Apart from the fact that some people still do not quite know who the leader of the National Party is, because there have been so many changes, those who have focused on it have been, I think, assessing what in fact is required to lead a political party. I say to Dr Brash that I am afraid that his end-of-year performance is wanting. I know he would take these matters seriously, being a man of the past, and in particular one who enjoyed the economics and the management performance regimes of the 1980s and 1990s. He will be taking a good, honest, hard look at his own performance, as I am sure the party of which he is leader is also doing.

In terms of that reflection, I think it comes down to an understanding of what political leadership is really all about. The fact remains, and it is sad to say it, that Dr Brash simply has not got it. He has not got it on many, many counts, but one of the most important counts is that he lacks courage. He lacks the capacity to make the hard decisions. He lacks the capacity to front both his own colleagues and the people of New Zealand.

It is seen in this House by the fact that his appearances here are so rare that on occasions one is not sure who the leader is. We know that he is out there in the electorate, meeting the declining number of members of the National Party. He is not meeting the real people of New Zealand. They have made their choice. They have made their views known on the type of leadership style that Dr Brash is showing, in the series of polls that we are going out on this year.

The other thing that is apparent to some of us who observe politics, both from within the House and outside, is that Dr Brash was ill-prepared for leadership. He came in thinking it was like running a company. He did not seem to understand that in politics a leader has to engage with people, particularly one’s colleagues, on a one-to-one basis. A leader has to find time for them; one has to be able to conduct one’s caucus in a way that shows respect for the diversity amongst one’s own members, while showing leadership and unity as to how to bring them together to act as a team. Anyone who observes what happens in this House on a day-to-day basis knows that there is disunity on the other side. There is no focus, there is no energy, and there is no strategy. The tactics are abysmal. I know that it is not the job of the Government to give an assessment and a report on how to improve his leadership rating in the polls, but the state of democracy is such at the moment that I feel obliged to make at least a few observations as to what is happening in that direction.

Leadership does not come only from the way that one interacts with people, with one’s own colleagues but also people in the electorate—one does not talk down to them; one listens and uses language that people can understand; one relates to the issues that are real to the people, not those highfalutin, boardroom-type issues that seem important if one is the Governor of the Reserve Bank, but are not so important if one aspires to be a serious leader of a political party. A person shows leadership not only through style but through substance. That comes through giving leadership on policy. There are no policies from the National Party and there are no policies that are relevant to the times at the moment, because Dr Brash leads a party back to the future, so to speak. He has all his experience centred on the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Anyone who observes what is happening in this country today knows we have to look to the future. If, in fact, we look back, if we go back to the Stone Age, which is where he wants to lead us, then we are doomed, and the people of New Zealand know that.

What has happened to Helen Clark? Where is that fiercely principled human rights campaigner we used to know and love? Why has she turned into a free-trade zealot? Time and again a cynical public tells me that once politicians get their hands on power, they sacrifice their principles. I always refute that claim, but our Prime Minister’s behaviour in recent times makes me a liar. Yesterday’s events at the ASEAN summit marked the low point. On the same day that Myanmar’s military regime locked up pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi for another 12 months, Helen Clark said that Myanmar’s human rights abuses should not get in the way of free-trade negotiations.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member has been sitting next to Jeanette Fitzsimons too long.

That, I say to Mr Mallard, is a far cry from the Helen Clark of old. Back in 1994 when she was the newly elected leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark delivered an excellent speech on human rights and foreign policy to the Auckland University Centre for Peace Studies. In it she said: “The maltreatment of citizens of other nations because they hold differing views from those of governing elites is obnoxious to us. Torture and other forms of physical and mental abuse are anathema to us. Most of us expect our Governments to represent our views on violations of human rights wherever they occur, and to support appropriate international actions against the abusers.” She went on to say: “The collapse of apartheid did not occur by the 1990s without significant international pressure. In the 1980s in particular that pressure built within the Commonwealth and the United Nations, leading to effective sanctions. The systematic violation of human rights in South Africa was eventually taken very seriously by the international community, but it took many years for a combination of economic and other sanctions and diplomatic pressure to bear fruit.” Was she right then? Yes, she was. Is she right now? No, she is not.

I am sure that Helen Clark still holds by another excellent statement she made in that speech: “Respect for human rights is a widely shared value, irrespective of culture. The fact that it is not shared by authoritarian regimes and elites which sustain them, whether they be, for example, nominally communist, fundamentalist Islamic, or just plain autocratic, does not detract from that. I cannot believe that it is only those with so-called Western values who find repugnant the lashing of a teenager with a rattan cane in Singapore, or the years of house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Inhumanity, including cruelty and unusual punishment, is something which must always be opposed.” To her credit, Helen Clark has continued to criticise the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, but what impact will her diplomatic hand-wringing have when, in the next breath, she committed New Zealand to negotiating a trade deal with Myanmar’s oppressive military regime? Helen Clark should reflect on her own words to the 1998 Labour Party conference, when she said of Jenny Shipley: “Like Sir Robert Muldoon before her, she prefers to build links to oppression, while democratic voices are silenced in jail.”

The Green Party’s concerns about the ASEAN, Thai, and Chinese preferential trade deals go beyond fundamental human rights being sacrificed for free trade. We are concerned about the New Zealand manufacturing businesses that will go to the wall if they are forced to face unfair competition as a result of tariff cuts. We are concerned about the thousands of Kiwi jobs that will be sacrificed on the altar of free trade. I am not talking just about the end of the textile, clothing, and footwear sector—as important as that is. I am also talking about the likes of Fisher and Paykel—one of the elaborately transformed manufacturing businesses the Government champions at the forefront of its strategy.

If Labour removes the last 7 percent tariff on whiteware and New Zealand is flooded with cheap-labour fridges, stoves, and washing machines from Asia, we can kiss goodbye to one of New Zealand’s top manufacturers. Fisher and Paykel is not inefficient, it is not bloated by tariff protection, but it simply will not be able to compete against multinational corporations that pay Third World workers less than the cost of living and make them work in unsafe conditions. It cannot compete against regimes that tolerate slave labour or forced child labour. I ask Helen Clark to please reread her old speeches before she trades away her principles.

I, like other members, have become accustomed to the Leader of the Opposition flip-flopping on major policy issues, but I want to welcome the flip-flop that he has made on superannuation, because superannuation is so vital to New Zealand’s future. However, to hear a National leader say that superannuation ought not to be a political football, caught in my throat when I thought back to 1975 and the biggest electoral bribe this country has ever seen, and also to the surtax—“no ifs, no buts, no maybes”; the surtax would go. But never mind, we can be generous, because the flip-flop is in New Zealand’s interests.

To read in the paper this morning that a conservative backlash against the Civil Union Bill has forced a change of heart from National leader Don Brash, in that he will now vote against it, flies in the face of reason. It was only a week ago that he told Radio Rhema listeners that his conscience was not for sale, and I quote: “I’m not willing to prostitute my conscience for any vote, and if that means voting for something which is unpopular or against something which is popular, then so be it. You can’t expect me—and I’m sure you wouldn’t, because you’re a person of principle yourself—to vote for something I disagree with, just because it would win me votes.”

So what changed things? Why was there a flip-flop of conscience? I think he indicated why in a comment he made in October, when he said: “If I deliver, I’m secure; if I don’t deliver, I’m history.” Coupled with this morning’s New Zealand Herald DigiPoll—50.1 percent Labour; 30.4 percent National—that is what this is all about. It is about polls, and nothing more.

Dr Brash also said that his change of heart was about process, but Radio Rhema asked him whether he would oppose the bill simply because of the process. He did say he might, and he does have a habit of doing that. Yet he ended his quote by saying: “But I don’t want to be in a situation of opposing something just because that might win me votes.” The only reason Dr Brash is changing his vote is that his political strategists—

💬 Darren Hughes: McCully’s way.

Yes, they would call it “McCully’s Way” if they were writing a film about it. His strategist told him to do that, and all Dr Brash has done is undermine the one trait that one would expect from somebody whose signature appears on our bank notes.

The embarrassment is his, because to vote against something he believes in, in good conscience, is something that will weigh on his conscience for the rest of his life. His own father was so concerned about the vilification of gays and lesbians by those who took a literal view of the Bible that he wrote a book, as a church minister, to help the parents of gay and lesbian sons and daughters be clear that the Bible did not vilify their children. If Dr Brash’s own father could bring that to the attention of church people—and I respected his father; I was there at the launch of his book, and that meant so much to gays and lesbians in churches throughout the country—then to see Dr Brash change his vote for political reasons is absolutely the worst example of political expediency I have seen in my time in Parliament.

The vast majority of New Zealanders will be appalled at the orchestrated campaign by the Destiny Church, which did not even make a submission to the select committee, and by the Maxim Institute. It shows that all we need to change the National leader’s policy is to have that orchestrated campaign of submissions and emails.

I know that if Don Brash had been Prime Minister last year, New Zealand would have sent combat troops to Iraq as part of the invasion orchestrated by the United States of America—there is not one single member of the National Party who can deny that that would have been the case—New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation would be gone, the benefit cuts of 1991 would look benign, and there would be no return to the Employment Contracts Act because National would scrap labour laws and leave it to the market. Privatisation of public health, education, accident compensation, and housing would all be back on track. Don Brash’s unwavering commitment to a failed ideology is understandable; his giving up on his principles is not.

The public service of this country has a high reputation for integrity and honesty in its dealings with Governments of the day and with the public it serves. It therefore gives me no satisfaction to inform members of this House that a department under the stewardship of the Minister of Labour is placing this reputation at risk.

During the past 2 months I have questioned the Minister about the activities of a private company, Twywell Technology Ltd, that is involved in the management of the department’s information technology requirements. Those questions have provoked a flood of deeply disturbing information from within the public service. My informants reflect two common elements—one is fear, and the other is grave concern for the reputation of the department and its administrative practices. There is a fear of disclosure of identity, intimidation, unprofessional behaviour, and retaliation, damaging to their reputations, their jobs, and their ability to work in future with the department and other State sector agencies. They are concerned, brave people. Even more disturbingly, those informants assert that answers provided by the Minister to the questions I have asked of him have been misleading, that they fall short of portraying the full picture of the relationships that have developed between Twywell Technology Ltd and officials of the department over the past 7 years.

Members should be aware that the activities of Twywell Technology Ltd and its owner and director, Maxine Margaret Welsh, within this department do not involve small amounts of money. According to the Minister, since 1997 the department has paid this company some $8.4 million—an average in excess of $1.2 million a year. Its staff numbers appear to vary between two and seven at any one time. During this period Twywell Technology Ltd has, according to the Minister, provided management and facility services and carried out numerous specific project management roles. The more projects it recommends and has accepted as necessary, the more work it generates for itself across all these areas.

It holds, therefore, a powerful position requiring the utmost integrity. But the activities carried out by Twywell, as described by the Minister, demonstrate the existence of conflicts of interest that are difficult to resolve in view of the status of Twywell as a contractor to the department.

It is not surprising, in view of the list of activities the company is said by the Minister to carry out, that there are claims it has cost the department on occasions more to have Twywell involved in a project than the cost of the services or products provided by contracted vendors. Members should also know that the director of Twywell Technology Ltd was involved in establishing nominee companies—so that the beneficial ownership of such companies was hidden—to carry out work for the department. The work undertaken in one case and set up for undertaking in another case, according to the answers from the Minister, involved Twywell in setting specifications, assessing the validity of a tender process, and managing the projects. So it was that the sole director of Twywell set up a company called Da Vinci Integration. In December 2001, Da Vinci Integration was a “request for proposals” recipient. Who was to evaluate those requests? It was none other than Twywell—a gross conflict of interest and breach of faith. So it was also that Knight Technology International Ltd, another nominee Twywell company, provided services to the department from April 2002 to June 2002.

The department, through the Minister, has said it is not aware of reputable information technology companies taking steps to withdraw their services or refusing to become involved with the department.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The time for the debate has concluded—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is very unusual, but I noted that the member had not quite finished his speech, which I think was a relatively important one. If he had only a minute or two to go, the Government would not oppose his seeking leave to finish that minute or two.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. The member can finish his speech.

I was saying that the department, through the Minister, has said it is not aware of reputable information technology companies taking steps to withdraw their services, or refusing to become involved with the department, because of the activities of Twywell. I am advised of a number that withdrew their services and will have nothing to do with the department because of dissatisfaction with Twywell.

Questions relate to the relationship between Twywell and providers of products and services, over finders’ fees, the handling of invoices, and the extent to which the department paid the true costs of contracted work. I referred earlier to fear and intimidation. Members might like to know what those with a close knowledge of Twywell’s activities within the department have to say. They refer to greedy and unethical behaviour, unprofessional behaviour while representing the department, unprofessional relationships with senior members of the department, and verbal abuse of suppliers and staff that becomes intimidatory.

It is an ugly picture, consistent with fraud and corruption. There is an urgent need for investigation of these issues, and I suggest two courses of action. The first is an immediate inquiry by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Such an inquiry should show whether an examination of the situation by the Serious Fraud Office is appropriate. The second is an immediate investigation by the Audit Office. I am grateful to the House for giving me leave to complete those comments.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.