General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The big story of this week is Dr Don Brash. Do members remember Dr Don Brash? He was the first-term MP who elbowed his way to the top of the National Party by saying that he would set the policy agenda. That was his strength, we were told. He was no good in the House, and that is proven by the fact that he has asked four questions this year, so far—one primary question and three supplementary questions. We know he cannot get the other good questions, because other members of his party will not give them to him as he is no good at asking them. He is no good at public speaking, we were told. He is no good at campaigning, he cannot get elected directly, he is no good on television, and he is not much of a team player—but he does do policy well, we were told.

Last year we got the infamous speech at Ōrewa, but we got no policy. What we got was a speech that ended in the sacking of Georgina te Heuheu. That is what we got from that speech.

We moved on to law and order, but the rhetoric got even thicker. We learnt that we would get 10 more prisons, but no money to pay for them.

This year the soufflé tried to rise for the third time. At Ōrewa we got the welfare debate, the adopting out of babies, and the forcible immunisation of children—all the kinds of rhetoric we have heard before—but no real policy.

The only lasting result was that Katherine Rich disappeared from the front bench. I said at the time that Katherine Rich was not moving because she was forced to; she went because she wanted to go. She was very, very wise to reposition herself, because the National Party leader is being repositioned as we speak.

He is no longer the focus of strategy. Policy is no longer what the National Party is about. Clue one: where is Murray McCully? Murray McCully used to be a limpet on the side of Don Brash—the consigliere to the Don. The consigliere to the Don is not seen any more; he is gone.

What we have in his place is the slow rise of Bill English—not so much soufflé as refried beans—who is appearing on the front bench of the National Party. Mr English is the one who is now being noticed by his colleagues. I predict that Mr English is about to begin to make that move. But how interesting can it get? The National Party could not be unified behind that.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Five years!

Maurice Williamson, who is calling out now, hates Bill English. Bill English hates Maurice Williamson. Gerry Brownlee wants to be the leader, but John Key is the hair—and I mean “hair”—apparent at the present time.

This is the big story: the Brash experiment has not worked. He has no policy to inspire the troops or the nation. He is quietly being abandoned by the people around him. He is not even speaking now. He sits like a lonely cloud in the House with no one noticing, even when he leaves. He is a forgotten man.

On 14 February 2005 it was reported that the National Party was closing the poll gap on Labour. The picture was of Don Brash, but the face was that of Tony Ryall. Tony Ryall wants to be Don Brash, at present. There is no doubt that following the next election Don Brash will be replaced as leader but there are strong signs now that the troops simply cannot wait. The damage is too great. The momentum is too weak. He does not lead; he does not even follow; he just sits.

I do not know whether members have seen the film Dead Man Walking. It is a film about death-row prisoners. As those prisoners walk to their execution, people call out: “Dead man walking!”. I will give members a break. They do not have to go to see the film, to hire the video, or to borrow the money. All they need to do is to watch Don Brash. Whenever he gets up, the House is watching Dead Man Walking. I say “Goodbye!” to Dr Brash.

I think the House and the country at large is concerned at the lack of accountability that has been exposed in Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. The Government’s representative on the governing board, Mr McNally, has described a culture of executive extravagance. Yet we have also learnt this week that, under this Labour Government, funding for the wānanga went from $8 million per year to $239 million last year. That is over a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Let us have a look at some of the governance issues. I say at the outset that the ACT party applauds entrepreneurial spirit. We do not mind people getting rich or becoming prosperous, provided it is based on quality service provision and provided they are not rorting the taxpayer. They are the two key criteria, and I very much doubt that this organisation meets them. It is clear that a group of people in this organisation are getting very, very rich, at the taxpayers’ expense.

When we look at the governance situation there are a number of issues. The key question is: why has the Government not moved to address these problems? One thing we do know is that one of the major programmes, the Mahi Ora programme, was developed by a staff member and sold to the wānanga for $7 million. That was $7 million of taxpayers’ money. The course was developed and sold to them by a woman called Susan Cullen

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: How much did she make?

Indeed! She happens to be the daughter of the chief executive officer Rongo Wētere. That just happens to be a coincidence. That is the pattern of governance and, I believe, what could well be rorts in this organisation.

We have heard today about the car-grooming business. There are dozens of these shelf companies. If we look at the ownership structure of these companies—the shareholders and the directors—they are all cross-pollinated. It would seem that all the same people are cross-pollinating these companies, clipping the taxpayers’ ticket, and rorting the taxpayers of this country.

I will talk about the Oma Investments shelf company, which supplies all the apparel and the resource kits. Let us be quite clear—there are 27,000 students at this university. It is an enormous organisation, and the inducements that are paid—using taxpayers’ money, of course—to get students enrolled include free T-shirts, free sweatshirts, free briefcases, and free laptops, which students are told they can keep at the end of the course. Why? Because every time the wānanga enrols someone, it gets funding for another equivalent full-time student—another $5,000 of taxpayers’ money. We learnt last year that it even enrolled members of Parliament. Members of Parliament were staggered to find that they had been enrolled in a wānanga course. One needs only to stand in a queue for a hamburger, particularly if one looks Māori, and the next thing one knows one is enrolled and getting the kit with the apparel and all the rest of it.

So Oma Investments supplies all this equipment. Guess who the shareholders are? The shareholders are the wānanga chief executive officer Rongo Wētere, the campus manager from Te Kūiti, the ex-chairman of the council, three other council members, and the directors. It is made up of Rongo Wētere, two of his sons, the chairman of the council, and so on. This is an absolutely endemic pattern. That structure was revealed in the parliamentary select committee inquiry that was tabled in the House, yet the Government has continued to pump in nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in one financial year into this organisation. The quality of some of the courses provided is such that I have information to say that students do not even need to finish a course, they need only to enrol. The wānanga is not interested after a student enrols; it has its $5,000. There are no quality checks. It even seems that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is giving out certificates to students who are now complaining because they pulled out of their courses, yet they got their full kit—their T-shirts, their sweatshirts, and their computers.

The 9-year experiment of the ACT party is almost over. Its founders have deserted it. Roger Douglas has given up. The members hate each other. There are eight people in the party and six of them think they should be leader, but only 1.6 percent of the country thinks that ACT should have anything to do with governing, or that it should be in Parliament. We will see the last of that party in September of this year.

But the public is asking another question, and that is the question I want to focus on today. That question is: where is Dr Brash? This is the third week of the parliamentary session. Dr Brash asked a question on the first day, and he has not been heard of since. Maybe he is following the advice that it is better to remain silent and be thought inadequate than to open one’s mouth and prove it. Time and again in this House Don Brash has opened his mouth and proven his inadequacy to lead the National Party. Bill English knows that. Bill English sees that. Bill English remembers that he was stabbed in the back by that newcomer to Parliament. Bill English will show the same loyalty to Don Brash as Don Brash showed to him, and he cannot wait.

Dr Brash is as silent now as he was during that great catastrophe, the tsunami. I remember that Dr Brash left the country 3 days after the tsunami to take a holiday in Hawaii. He said nothing before he went. He lay on the beach for 10 days and said nothing. Then he came back and criticised his fellow New Zealanders for doing too little about the catastrophe. Don Brash has learnt nothing. This House remembers when Don Brash made a comment in the Australian newspaper about this country being just another small Pacific Island State on the path to failure. There is the man who wants to be Prime Minister of New Zealand but runs down his own country. And he got the reaction.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

That member knows the record. The article was written, and that is what it said. Well, I am proud to be a citizen in this small Pacific Island country. I am proud to be a citizen in a country that since the year 2000 has created more than a quarter of a million jobs. I am proud to be a member of a Government that has seen unemployment in the last year alone fall by 19 percent to the lowest level in more than 21 years. I am proud to be a member of a Government that is currently seeing 126,000 people in job training, with over 8,000 of those on the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. I am proud to be the Minister of Justice in a Government that has seen crime fall by 18 percent to the lowest level in 21 years.

But I go back to my original question. Why has Dr Brash been rendered mute in this country? I believe that it is a crisis in confidence, because of his appalling mismanagement of the Katherine Rich affair. I want to finish by quoting this question, asked by Linda Clark to Dr Brash: “Do you have a problem with women?”. Dr Brash replied: “I don’t believe so.” Linda Clark said: “Well, Georgina te Heuheu; Lynda Scott is not standing again, or seems to feel marginalised by you in some way; and Katherine Rich. No female on the front bench.”, and Dr Brash said: “There are a number of reasons why Lynda Scott is leaving.”, and “Georgina certainly is a woman; Katherine is as well.” What perception and insight! He said: “I’ve explained why both of these people couldn’t continue in their portfolios.” Linda Clark also said: “But you’ve got to be able to work with women.”, and Dr Brash replied: “Er, absolutely—and I can.” Yeah right!

The problem with Dr Brash is not that he cannot work with women but that he cannot work with any of his caucus. There are now more former front-bench members of the National caucus than there are people currently sitting on the front bench. Dr Brash has brought a management style from the corporate sector to his caucus, and it has failed. More than one of them has a grin on their face right now, anticipating the day Dr Brash will be knifed in the back.

I suppose it is to be expected that Labour would be worried about Dr Brash’s relentless rise in the polls, but the real crisis of confidence is one that Labour still cannot understand, and that is the crisis of confidence of 150,000 young New Zealanders in the school qualifications for which they study so hard. Why did the Government not mention that today? The other crisis of confidence is between Helen Clark and her main “Mr Fix-it” Ministers: Trevor Mallard, Steve Maharey, and David Benson-Pope.

David Benson-Pope and Trevor Mallard remind me of one of those pantomime horses we see when the kids are doing a show. They both are fighting to be the back end! Neither of them wants to be responsible for stories like the one today, where the head of the chemistry teachers association—a man whom I have never met, and who probably has no partisan bent—tells us that 2,000 to 3,000 students were disadvantaged by a shonky exam. A professor of chemistry who used to set and mark exams could not pass that exam in the time allotted. That is why the Prime Minister has panicked, and today she has dumped the Minister of Education right in the middle of it.

It turns out that he knew about the shonky New Zealand Scholarship results, because he told the Prime Minister about them on 15 or 16 January. He knew then, because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority had told him the day before. We are not talking about some large, complicated analysis of the millions of papers, which they keep referring to; we are talking about a single-page table that shows the number of people who entered, and the number of people who passed. How could he know that fewer people were passing scholarship than expected without his having seen the table that showed the subjects? Was he given just the little bit at the bottom—the rest being covered up—and told: “Trevor, you’re allowed to see only the one number at the bottom.”? Was he given a big, square sheet of paper with one number on it, and the rest was withheld under the Official Information Act, because it was not in the public interest? How ridiculous!

He was told on 14 January. He told the Prime Minister on 15 January. He was told again on 17 January. On 18 January his most senior officials, Karen van Rooyen and Howard Fancy, convened an officials group to work on the problem. On 26 January he put out a press release. Was it not wonderful? In it he said: “As this is the first time the new Scholarship system has been run, there is particular interest in the patterns of results …”. Except that today he told the House he never looked at the pattern of results. He is particularly interested—so particularly interested that he never even looked at it. Who believes that? The Minister also stated: “Provisional results indicate that some students did exceptionally well in Scholarship, but didn’t necessarily”—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you might have intervened at that point. A member’s word has been given in this House, and it cannot be doubted in this House, as it was then by the Hon Bill English.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I heard it and I think it was borderline. In fact, that is the way I accepted it—as being very borderline. But I did hear it. It was hypothetical.

So there is particular interest, and there is detail about the provisional results—so detailed that, apparently, he knows how many students sat three subjects, and others that are not publicly available. But, apparently, he did not know anything.

This press release was an attempt to cover up shonky results in New Zealand Scholarship, which came to public attention only because concerned teachers and parents brought them to public attention. What we now know, from what the Prime Minister and the Minister have said, is that we would never have heard about that from those people. They set so much more store by the aspirations of young New Zealanders, but they did not do what they should have done—that is, tell the public. We would never have known—never. It would not have happened. It would have stayed covered up by the 26 January press release.

In the real scrap going on now between the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Minister, whose head will roll—Karen van Rooyen’s or the Minister’s? I say it will be the Minister’s.

The whiff of the election has finally penetrated the previously blocked nostrils of the Opposition. The comatose members opposite have come out of their stupor and their sloth, and they are setting out to convince New Zealanders that they are fit for the purpose of governing the country. Well, for 2½ years they have been backbiting, back-stabbing, divided, and demoralised—and that is just within the National Party caucus. Now they want Kiwis to believe they are united, they are brimming with ideas and policies, and they are eager to take the country boldly forward. Yeah, right! It is all a bit rich.

Let us examine their warrant of fitness for the job. Do they pass the test? Are there too many broken bits, too many worn out bits? Are they riddled with corrosion and rust? Are their indicators on the blink? Has the previously sleek limo—only affordable by the rich—turned into a clapped-out hunk of junk? Where is the key to their future? Is he sitting two seats along from their leader? And who is in the driving seat, anyway?

Well, New Zealanders could be forgiven for thinking it is supposed to be Don Brash, but everyone knows that it is the invisible man, Murray McCully, who is often described as National’s powerful strategy and tactics man. He is a shadowy figure. He certainly does not represent the East Coast Bays in this Parliament. We never see him. When did he last speak in this Parliament? When did he ask a question? When did he last sit on a select committee? He is not even a permanent member of a select committee. Everybody else has to carry his load. He reminds me of a mole. Moles work underground, they cannot see 10 centimetres ahead of them, and their main purpose is to dig holes for everybody else to fall in. Even Molesworth & Featherston, in its latest edition, thinks Murray McCully has lost the plot. This is the man who called the scrupulously neutral and honest commentator Colin James a leftist, and who said this week that the use of condoms is an official endorsement of homosexuality. He should say that to the thousands of hot-blooded heterosexual males.

Don Brash is the puppet and Murray McCully is the puppeteer. He has turned Don Brash into the metamorphosis man—the man who is constantly changing his principles and constantly changing his policies. Dr Brash reminds me of one of those plasticine stick men that we can bend and twist in any direction we want to put them in at any one time. In fact, he is able to portray two different positions at the same time. He was for and against the seabed and foreshore legislation. He was against 4 weeks’ holiday and now he is for 4 weeks’ holiday. He was for civil unions; now he is against civil unions. He was against the superannuation fund; now he is for the superannuation fund. He was for Simon Power; now he is against him. He was for Katherine Rich; now he is against her. He was for Georgina te Heuheu; now he is against her. He was for Lynda Scott; now he is against her. He was against Nick Smith; now he is for him. He is both for and against Gerry Brownlee, and he is still making up his mind about John Key. He is for blokes, but he is against women—although, to be fair, he has been heard to say he has great respect for women. I am sure that even some of his best friends are women. He even recognises that Georgina te Heuheu and Katherine Rich are women. That is amazing. It took him 2 weeks to find a woman who was willing to talk about him in a positive light after he made the National Party front bench a woman-free zone.

I think my local paper, the Cook Strait News, got it right in its editorial last week when it wrote this about Don Brash: “Don Brash is starting to show his age … the good doctor is edging towards a twilight of shuffling around the kiwifruit orchard in slippers, making unsolicited and long-winded small talk with passing strangers … He’s started up with schemes that were disastrous in the middle of last century, but now have a certain nostalgic appeal to anyone who was young then.” I would say that that paper has it about right.

What about policy? To get an insight into National’s policy, we have to buy the Independent and pay $550 for a table, to be able to find out what National Party policy is.

I bring to the attention of the House an area of great concern to Aucklanders, and that is the forthcoming rates increases that the various councils are beginning to speak about. It is often said that it is the straw that, indeed, breaks the camel’s back. United Future has campaigned hard for a long time in this parliamentary term for a zero rating of rates for GST purposes. Now, when we begin to see again that the rates increases in Auckland City are running at double and triple the current rate of inflation, I believe that this issue needs to be brought to the forefront and to our attention.

Earlier this year our member Gordon Copeland brought in a member’s bill that would have achieved the zero rating of GST on rates. Many in the House chose not to support that measure, yet the cost would have been only $160 million. With the Budget in surplus and debt tracking down, $160 million is almost petty cash territory in relation to total Government expenditure.

Look at the interesting scenario we have in Parliament right now. The current Minister of Finance was an opponent of GST being applied to rates when he was a Labour Party senior whip. The Leader of the Opposition, whom we have heard much about in this debate, Dr Don Brash, was the co-chair of the committee that recommended that GST be applied to rates. He is the same leader—Don Brash—of the National Party whom I heard badgering in this House yesterday against United Future because we wanted, and supported, an increase in fuel tax so that we can get the gridlock and the roads unlocked in the fine city of Auckland. That same leader was on the committee that put a tax upon a tax. Every fair-minded New Zealander knows that GST on rates is just a tax on a tax. One of the things that concerns me as a mere tradesperson who went into business—[Interruption] I do understand GST far better than Chris Carter, for example, who offered to have me briefed by the Inland Revenue Department on zero rating of rates for GST purposes, only to be told that our understanding was correct and his understanding was not correct.

Removal of GST will not alter the revenue intake by local authorities. Both Australia and Canada do not have GST on their rates, because they consider it a tax on a tax. Yet when we try to deal with that issue for the public of New Zealand we get a press release from the chairman of the Local Government Forum, Simon Carlaw, stating that United Future’s campaign to get rid of GST on rates would raise costs for everyone. Clearly, and unfortunately, those people in local government do not understand the issue that we are dealing with. Let us be clear. The removal of GST on rates will not alter the revenue of councils or the net revenue of businesses. It will, however, mean that the 12.5 percent GST impost will no longer be added to the bills of 1.7 million New Zealand ratepayers. The ratepayers need a break. Councils will increase rates from time to time, but let us give them a fair go. They know that 9 percent of a rates bill goes to the Government coffers as a tax on a tax. United Future says that it is time to remove GST from rates. That would provide a 12.5 percent leeway so that over the next few years the hard-working New Zealand ratepayers—the homeowners of this country—will at least get a break and the camel’s back will not have to be broken.

Removal of GST will positively affect the cash-flow position of ratepayers. They will have more dollars in their hand. I have never seen a Government that is such an expert at collecting tax as this Labour Government has been. The surplus is incredible. If the Government genuinely wants people to save, if it genuinely wants people to become homeowners, let us not put another negative on that by thumping the poor old ratepayer once again. Let us give them a break. Let us remove the GST from rates.

This morning I had the joy of cycling from Wainuiomata, a lovely little town just outside of Wellington, with three parliamentary colleagues. It was a delightful thing to do, a most appropriate thing to do, because it is Bike Wise week. Bike Wise week is a week devoted to encouraging people to get off their backsides to use their own means of getting around on a bicycle. One might say that it is a sort of frivolous thing to do, but unless we encourage our younger people to adopt different lifestyles the reality is that a lot of people will get sicker as a consequence of having too little exercise in their lives. Type 2 diabetes is the most striking manifestation of this, probably, at $200 million a year annual cost to our health budget. It is something that is likely to blow out sometime in the next 20 years to over $1 billion—$1 billion that we could quite easily avoid from an input of relatively modest sums of money to encourage lifestyle changes at this stage.

Is biking difficult? Is getting out and getting exercise difficult? Well, it is in a society that has been designed around the motorcar. If people want to ride a bike, they take their life in their own hands to do so. For the uncertain it can be a scary prospect. In fact, this city has made some attempt to make it, slightly easier. It has taken some of the grit and the gravel off the cycleway, but none the less it is not the kind of thing that most people would do willingly.

For the rest of the country—well, could I say that the land transport roading programme last year devoted something like $100,000 to each community for cycling initiatives. Most local authorities have not actually budgeted to spend that money. They have nothing in their particular roading programmes or in their regional land transport strategies to spend that money on. None the less the money is there to do it. It is a move by the Government in the right direction. What we have to do now is make sure that those local authorities take it seriously.

The other reason Bike Wise is important this week is that it is an important part of changing the culture of high energy demands that our lifestyles require. Climbing into motorcars to travel to places that we should have been much closer to in the first place is not only extraordinarily expensive, it is extraordinarily risky. Some time in this century the carbon dioxide levels are likely to double. They have increased by only 90 parts per million in the last 240-odd years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that, in fact, they are likely to increase this century by 550 parts per million from 370-odd parts per million. In fact, since it made that prediction, there have been announcements of 3 and 4 parts per million increase in carbon dioxide per year, which gives a doubling to something like 775 parts per million.

Now a 90 parts per million increase in carbon dioxide levels over the space of a mere 240 years gives rise to 1 degree of warming—large parts of northern China and large parts of Inner Mongolia turning to desert, and extreme weather events. What can we look forward to, if, in fact, carbon dioxide levels double this century? It is not the kind of thing about which we can simply say: “Well, it may not happen, the technicians will come up with a fix.” It is something that all of us have to take seriously, and nothing less than a substantial culture change will do it. The reality is that the Kyoto Protocol is a requirement of all of us. This country has given an example, accepted the responsibility, and it now has to measure up to it.

As I said, nothing less than a substantial culture shift will meet that responsibility. So what is this culture shift? Well, it is sourcing our needs closer to home. It is choosing to live closer to the places we need to be so we do not spend half our lives getting there and the other half of our lives earning the money to pay for it. It is actually supporting Buy Local. It is actually going into our supermarkets and looking around for the products that are made here and that do not have an ecological footprint of thousands of miles.

I find it absurd, in a food-producing nation, that something over 60 percent of the product on the shelves in this country are imported. In a food-producing nation, that is absurd. It is also something we can no longer afford to continue; carbon dioxide and sanity decide otherwise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I call—[Interruption] Does Jill Pettis wish to take the call?

💬 Jill Pettis: No, not us.

This is fortunate. We move up into the slots, due to other people’s disorganisation, but no doubt they will get their act together. I do not mind that they do not, because we are in election year. But—

💬 Jill Pettis: It is not our call.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is somewhat unusual, and I want to try to traverse it a little bit carefully in order not to breach Speakers’ rulings and a tradition in this matter. It is my understanding that there is a party with only one member, the Māori Party, that does not have a whip to keep it up to date. I wonder whether a messenger could be sent to Ms Turia’s room to let her know that she has twice now missed her call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. It is a simple issue.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Well, having said it was a simple issue I will take some more advice on it.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: When the member did not take the call, because the member is not here, I sought the call before my colleague in New Zealand First. On the schedule National is in the 10th spot. I am here, and I did seek the call. But you did give the call to Mr Mark. He also sought the call, but I think I was on my feet earlier. You might not have noticed, but I did go for the call. But he is No. 12 on the list. So I seek your indulgence as to who should actually get the call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have actually given the call. But—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not need any more assistance.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It is a different point of order altogether.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Well, I want to deal with the previous point of order, and the member may then raise his point of order. We have a list here, which I am following very closely. If members had taken the hint, we would not have got into this. They did not take the hint. I gave the call to not the only person on his feet seeking it, but the one in my clear vision, and I apologise to Mr Tisch for that. But I have given the call to Ron Mark on that one, and we are not about to use any resources of the House or any messengers to whip the Māori Party member. So that is where that lies.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Our Standing Orders are quite clear that a member may not refer to the absence of another member. It is quite wrong and, indeed, a serious breach of our Standing Orders for Mr Mallard to try to do that under the guise of a point of order. That was very unruly, certainly a clear breach of our Standing Orders, and very unfair on the member who may not be here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, the absence of a member was referred to. I took it as the member trying to be helpful in the situation, but I thank the Hon Ken Shirley for raising it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For your information, and to clarify and assist the House, I can inform the House that New Zealand First has just had communication with the member concerned, and the member has expressed that she will not be speaking in this debate, so I leave it to you and the whips to sort this out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member.

I recall, in 1996, when I came to this House as a member of the New Zealand First caucus, seeing members on the Opposition benches frothing at the mouth, foaming about, and telling the Government of the day what they were going to do about crime and law and order. In fact, one of the key speakers in that Opposition team was the man now known and referred to as the Hon George Hawkins. Mr Hawkins in those days lambasted the Government for the lack of resources for the police and, in fact, in one particularly famous speech he accused the Government of under-resourcing the police because they were not able to paint out the scratches on their vehicles. Indeed, he said they were having to use Twink to cover the scratches on their vehicles.

Well, a lot of water goes under the bridge, and eventually a man who spent 9 years planning to be in Government, to be the Minister, to implement a National Crime Authority—something that he just dismissed as a possibility yesterday, when it was called for by one of the other Opposition members—is now the Minister, is now totally in control of resourcing for the police, is now the one person the police go to for resources and to get the priorities, and what are we seeing? Today we see a crisis of confidence in the police from the public. Today we have a situation where members of the public now know that if they have an emergency they can dial 111 and get a taxi. They were then told that if they dial 111 and people do not listen to them, they should scream louder down the phone. Then they were told that if they dial 111 they would be told where the nearest police station was and they could walk to get there.

What is at the heart of all of this? The heart of all of this is the priorities and the resources this Government gives to the police. We have known for quite a long time that there has been dissension and division in the police ranks, with general duties officers calling the other lot “snakes”—the “snakes” are out there issuing their quota tickets. The Government sits by and plays Pontius Pilate and says that it is a police issue and the police determine the priorities. From reading the 2003-04 supplementary questionnaire to the examination of the estimates, in the baseline update reports and the comments, we now see there are specific requests in there from the Commissioner of Police asking this Government for specific resources.

What did he say? He said that the Auckland area was failing in its ability to respond to emergency calls, with 45 to 55 percent reaching the standard of 10 minutes. He asked for 100 extra officers just to deal with responses to emergencies. What did he get? He got one-third of that figure over 3 years. Yet this Minister has the audacity to sit here and tell the House that he has no control over the police resources or where they go and what they do. We now know that that is not true.

In a report written for the Minister we now know that the police have said as far back as 2002 that their ability to deploy the resources to meet the emerging threats to law and order are now being heavily interdicted by the Government, which ring-fenced resources for specific tasks only. We also now know from that same report that the Government has put the primary focus not on providing general duties officers to fight crime, and promote law and order, but the Government has put the focus on providing traffic cops.

How do we know that? We know that because this report stated at that time that of the 375 newly funded sworn staff allocated by strategic priority, the main beneficiaries had been road policing—285 positions. That says it all. That says that the Minister is manipulating how the police operate, the Government is dictating where the resources go, and the Government is emphasising a policy of road safety over and above all else. Today we get a bizarre statement from a police officer saying that no detectives are being pulled from serious investigations. The Government should tell that to a woman who has had her house invaded and burgled. Does this Government not have any idea of how personal a burglary is and how serious it is to people? Clearly not!

The Prime Minister opened the parliamentary session with one of the more uplifting speeches that I have heard in some time. I well remember the contribution made by the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters, when he said of the National Party that it now has three factions. I went back home and sought to put the names and addresses of each member of the National caucus into one of those three factions, and I could not. I took Winston Peters’ speech seriously and tried to fit the National members into one of three factions, but I could not. The reason is that I have six factions. Normally, one does not get six factions in a political party; normally there are just two.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What about ACT?

ACT has four factions. It had four people running for the leadership, and therefore the ACT members split themselves four ways. For example, New Zealand First had just two factions: those who went off with the Government of the day, and those who did not. Certainly, the Labour Party has had its splits and divisions in its history. I am sorry to say that we had a fair bit to do with the starting of the ACT party and of United Future. I guess we got ourselves up to three, but not to six, factions.

National’s factions are not firm factions; they move daily. But they do have a certain pattern to them, and they are often determined around behaviour, gender, or geography. It is worth taking a look at how those factions come to be. The first faction is the group of National MPs who will speak freely about what is going on in the National Party caucus, as compared with those who do not. So it may be an issue of discipline, it may be an issue of disaffection with the leader, or it may be a little bit of each. When we look at the members who speak out and have something to say about the good Dr Brash, generally speaking we find that they are people whom one expects will not vote for the good Dr Brash when he comes up for re-election after his failure at the next general election. Lynda Scott is an obvious example of that, and Brian Connell is another. We can see—and I will be careful not to mention some names—that a number of National Party caucus members are quite happy to speak out, including off the record, but they find themselves reported as: “National MP says …”. We have a list of their names. As I said, they include some unfortunate examples, and I will not read that list out. However, there is certainly a faction that will speak out versus those members who will not.

The second faction, of course, is based on gender. The leader of the National Party has six women members in his caucus, but none of them are on the front bench. One of them has decided to retire, one of them got the biff earlier this year, and one of them got the biff earlier last year. That is three out of six women who are disaffected, and, of course, they are supported by the other three. So there is certainly a gender faction within the National Party; there is no doubt about that.

The other group of MPs who are offside with Dr Don Brash are South Islanders. I do not know why, but it just so happens that his predecessor, Bill English, is from the South Island. The aforementioned Katherine Rich is from the South Island, as is the woman who is retiring, Lynda Scott, and also Nick Smith, who was to be the deputy and then he was not, and, of course, the member for Rakaia, Brian Connell, a member of the National caucus who publicly said about his own leader: “I am very disappointed. I think it’s a stupid decision.” He comes from the South Island. There are only two MPs from the South Island who are not on that list. One of them is Gerry Brownlee, and I will come to him in a minute, and the other one is who? Who have I missed out? Which South Island MP have I missed out? That is right; nobody can remember. David Carter is from the South Island. He sits there as the one South Island MP who is probably still onside with the leader.

Then there is the brat pack. One of them is retiring, one of them was the leader, one of them was going to be the deputy leader, and one of them is Tony Ryall. The members of the brat pack are not the friends of Dr Brash because one of the brat pack is Dr Brash’s predecessor, and that faction sits there.

Then there are the young and the restless. At the moment the young and the restless really have only three true, paid-up members. They are Katherine Rich, John Key, and “Simon Says”.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

I am sorry; Simon Power. Let me tell the House something about the young and the restless. They had a to-do just last week, when Simon Power had to tell Katherine Rich not to resign from politics.

There is a major issue brewing in rural areas that affects the lives and security of many, many people. A cloud is starting to develop that this Government will have to take responsibility for. I refer to the news of the last few days about the cut-back in fire appliances and fire trucks in regional areas. Here we have a headline “Brigades fear trucks could go in shakeup”. The Minister then comes out and says: “Burton denies plans to cut fire engines.” In the same article the Fire Service national operations director, Steve Turek, said on Monday that it was possible some fire stations may lose fire engines. So who is right? The Minister said that there will be no cuts or reductions, yet the operations manager said that there will possibly be some cuts.

I have asked some parliamentary questions about this issue. One question was: “Does the Fire Service intend to reduce the number of Fire Trucks …?”. The answer came back from the Minister: “I am advised that it does not.” In another question I asked: “If there is a reduction in the number of Fire Trucks … how many will be involved and at what locations?”. The Minister said I should refer back to what he had stated previously. I have a document about the fleet strategy, which I intend to table after this debate. The New Zealand Fire Service’s fleet strategy states: “The initial application of this strategy shows that over the first five years, 54 new appliances will be introduced. This will stimulate the relocation of 250 appliances and a condition report for 136 appliances.” That document states that there will be a relocation of appliances, and the Minister has said that there will not be one—which is right? Is the Fire Service right in saying that it will relocate fire appliances, or is the Minister sticking to his denial, as he did in the newspaper today, of any cut in the number of fire engines?

This is a serious matter. The Fire Service fleet strategy report further states: “Appliance relocations and disposals will be inevitable as we work to get the actual fleet allocation aligned with the authorised fleet establishment.” It is quite clearly the intention of the Fire Service to reduce the number of fire appliances. In fact, I am told that that figure could be as high as 143 fire appliances. Where will they come from? They will come from the small rural brigades that are at the forefront of fighting fires and looking after our interests. They are the first to arrive at the site of accidents, yet this Government has no respect for the commitment and contribution that volunteer firefighters make to New Zealand. There are 11,000 of those people. They give up their time. They are at the forefront. This Government is sticking it to them and saying that their contribution is not recognised and not worthy.

This draft report on the fleet strategy also states, under the heading “Barriers to overcome”: “Barriers that need to be addressed as part of this strategy include: The existing fleet allocation needs to be reshuffled in the best interests of our service and the people we protect. This will require management commitment, tact, and diplomacy.” There it is. The Fire Service is saying it will do that, yet the Minister said in answer to my written questions that there would be no reduction in or relocation of appliances, and in the paper today also said that there would be no relocations.

I have here the Transalpine fleet strategy, dated 16 July 2004. That presentation, made by fire managers, identifies exactly where the machines are placed in the Transalpine fleet area and what will happen to them. I will table it, because it clearly articulates and shows that the Government will move to reduce them. People’s lives are at stake, and the Government will be held accountable.

I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the New Zealand Fire Service’s fleet strategy.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The second document is the Transalpine fleet strategy report of 16 July 2004.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Recently I spoke with parliamentarians in another jurisdiction, and they asked me why this Parliament operates by insult. I thought that was a good question to ask. On listening today to question time and to many of the speeches, particularly to the speech made by the Hon Bill English, I think it is time to reflect on whether we should actually look at issues and at the way we can move the country ahead, rather than continuing to operate by insult. National, ACT, and New Zealand First lead the pack, but many of us are tainted by it. It was good to have the Swedish Prime Minister in New Zealand this week. His Government is the successor of a string of socialist Governments that have concentrated for over 6 decades, with rarely a break in Government, on public investment in infrastructure, on building security for their people, and on having a planned economy. In contrast, New Zealand started off in the 1930s, at the same time as Sweden did, with a Government committed to using public resources to build the economy and social infrastructure in a planned and rational way. But, unfortunately, there have been very long periods of right-wing Government, which have interrupted the progress that would otherwise have been made for the benefit of all people.

Over the past 5½ years, however, we have had, in a coalition Government, a progressive administration that for the first time in three generations—the first time in almost 60 years—has a realistic chance of winning a third consecutive election. The Government has learnt from the Swedish model. The fact that pundits judge that there is the chance of a third term shows that achievement. It has been made possible because this progressive Government has had a clear strategy of partnership, of sensible intervention in the economy, of social development, and of investing sensibly in our infrastructure. A reflection of that success is the unemployment rate, which is the very lowest in the entire OECD group of wealthy nations. It has been reflected in the breaking of all records on job creation, in the extending by 33 percent of workers’ annual holiday entitlement to 4 weeks’ leave, and in the introduction and extension of paid parental leave for working parents. It has been further reflected in putting investment into regional and industry sectors that have delivered economic development better than Australia’s over the past 5 years, so reversing the previous 30-year record of failure. Those achievements have come about because attention has been given to the key issues. We have seen an increase in the investment in public health and education, to the benefit of all New Zealanders. The list of achievements is extraordinarily long because the work behind it has been extraordinary.

Sweden’s Government has kept winning elections for decade after decade because it has stood four-square for strong investment in public education and health services, combined with intelligent, pragmatic economic and social policies conducive to ensuring that Sweden is able to sell to the world. Just last week that country, with some of the highest and most progressive income taxes in Europe, announced that it will, over the next decade, increase them further in order to further bolster its already world-class public services, which are the envy of the world. The Swedes enjoy free, high-quality school and university education, generous unemployment benefits if people fall out of work, State-funded maternity and paternity leave, guaranteed childcare, and much more. But Sweden has a pragmatic approach to its economy. For example, alongside its progressive taxation system it has a headline business tax rate of 28 percent, so that it can compete with its European Union partners. There is no contradiction for a successful social democratic party in raising income by a progressive taxation system, while simultaneously reducing the corporate headline tax rate and promoting planned economic development with flexible policies.

I started off by talking about the policies of insult, and I have a warning for ACT. ACT is presently throwing accusation after accusation against Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. The Progressives do not advocate that there be a turning away from the allegations that have been raised—there have been some serious allegations—but that the process of investigation be fair and not be conducted in the atmosphere of a kangaroo court. It does no good in New Zealand, when we have a successful institution that has developed successful literacy programmes to tackle the 530,000 adult New Zealanders who are illiterate or functionally illiterate, to have ACT, in a scramble to get above 5 percent in the polls, intoxicated by the politics of insult. I believe, and the Progressive Party believes, that a country moves ahead if it looks seriously at its problems but does so in an atmosphere of analysis and informed debate, and not in one of the politics of insult.

It is a pleasure to join the debate today, because some very interesting dynamics have gone on in the House this afternoon. Mr English was the first speaker for the National Party today, and it was very interesting to watch the little joy club that assembled around him as he got up to make his contribution.

💬 Darren Hughes: He’s doing the numbers.

He is doing the numbers. I tell those who did not bother to stay that there were quite a few members down here in the House. Quite a few National members were here supporting Mr English and clapping enthusiastically. So I tell those National Party members—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Don will be gone by Sunday lunchtime.

Yes, Don Brash will be gone by Sunday lunchtime, let alone by any other lunchtime after the next general election. I tell those members of the National Party who did not come down to the House that the numbers are gathering. So, although we know that the National Party is riven with factionalism, we can see that one faction is gaining momentum. I even saw one National member go over and, very humbly, fill the member’s glass with water. My grandmother would have said: “Don’t be a crawler.”—but never mind. I have a friendly warning for National Party: I would keep my eyes and ears open, because the network is building.

I want to comment briefly on Lindsay Tisch’s statement, which was almost pyromanic in its content, in relation to rural fire engines. I have to disabuse Mr Tisch of any idea he has that rural fire stations will be downgraded. Talk about ambulance-chasing! He is not ambulance-chasing, but he is like habitual pyromaniacs who follow fire engines around the country and just get in the way. I urge Mr Tisch not to get in the way. This matter is about reviewing the equipment that rural fire stations require. I have a number of rural fire stations in my electorate, and we are making sure that they have the best equipment possible. So the member should stop ambulance-chasing and shroud-waving, because that is all it is.

I assume that Mr Brash is listening to the wireless and is very aware that the debate this afternoon is about his performance in the House, or lack of it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s hiding behind the bench.

I am sure he is hiding behind the bench. He is a mere shadow of his former self. He is not exhibiting the characteristics of a leader. A leader is “up there at ‘em”, is in the front firing on all cylinders, and has the caucus behind him or her. Well, I tell Mr Brash that he should not have the caucus behind him too much or, if he does, to put on a flak jacket, because the need for it is growing. Mr Brash’s performance since the House resumed this year has been absolutely abysmal. He has asked only one primary question, and that is not the sign of a leader who is on the way, who is strong and masterful, and who is exhibiting the characteristics of leadership. It shows us what a paucity of support there is for the National Party out there in the wider electorate, in that the party had to go as far as Switzerland to get somebody to speak positively about Mr Brash in his former employment.

💬 Darren Hughes: She’s probably staying in John Key’s holiday home.

Yes, she is probably staying in John Key’s holiday home—

💬 John Key: Which one?

In the Alps. Fancy having to go all the way to Switzerland to get somebody to speak publicly in favour of, or supportively about, Don Brash! That speaks volumes.

I have to tell other speakers today about the statistics with regard to our police personnel numbers. Those numbers are the highest they have been in living memory. More than 1,000 additional staff have been allocated since this Government came to power in 1999, and an extra $200 million has been allocated to the police budget. That is absolutely unprecedented, and it is why the crime rate is at the lowest it has been in the last 21 years—

💬 Darren Hughes: How long?

For 21 years. And the road toll is the lowest since the 1960s. Significant attitudinal and behavioural changes are taking place in this country, and things that were previously socially acceptable are now no longer so. Drink-driving and driving at excessive and dangerous speeds on the roads are now no longer socially acceptable. People want the police on our roads in order to keep us safe. Our police force is multi-talented and multi-functional, and that is why the crime rate is so low.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.