General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The House meets at this time, after the urgent debate, to have the general debate as the wheels are well and truly falling off this Labour Government. The Government is falling to bits, as Ministers take every opportunity to avoid any of the responsibility or accountability that the public should expect from them. What we are seeing day after day in this country with the New Zealand Police is a symptom of a wider crumbling of trust in the Government of New Zealand. This is a Government in which no Minister takes any responsibility. The formula has been set by the Prime Minister: never take responsibility, blame the officials, hold an inquiry or two—or three or four—and wait for the spin to take over. Ministers are never responsible for their failures.

The Minister of Police, the Hon George Hawkins, is the Minister who gave us “dial 111 for a taxi”; he is the Minister who delivered us “dial 111 and scream”. He is now the Minister who gives us a police force that is not investigating serious sexual complaints in south Auckland. The police released a statement, not 2 hours ago, in which they confirmed that there were 11 unassigned sex cases in south Auckland. But we saw the real contradiction in the House earlier today, when the Prime Minister said that these cases are under investigation, but the Minister of Police said that they are a such a problem that the police are putting a team together to go in and investigate them. How is it that in one of the largest police districts in New Zealand, 1,100 files are sitting on a desk, gathering dust? These files include 11 sex crimes, five of which involve alleged rapes of New Zealand women.

How seriously does the Government take this issue? In question time today, the Prime Minister laughed and giggled as Don Brash asked her how she would deal with the rape complaints of those women who have been put in the situation where not one police officer has been allocated to deal with their complaints. What did New Zealand’s second woman Prime Minister do when Don Brash asked how the Prime Minister would explain to these nine women the way their sexual complaints were being dealt with? What did the Prime Minister do? She laughed and chuckled about who watches Breakfast TV. Did the Prime Minister say that she considers it an absolute disgrace that when a woman makes a rape complaint in this country, George Hawkins’ police force can put it in a file on a table? What did the Prime Minister of New Zealand say? Absolutely nothing! She just giggled, laughed, and tried to dismiss the whole case. What did the Prime Minister of New Zealand say to the people of Counties-Manukau who cannot get a cop to turn up when their shop has been ripped off, or who cannot get a cop to turn up when their car has been burgled? What did she say to those people? Absolutely nothing!

We have in this country today a Minister of Police who is completely out of his depth and is unable to deliver the resources that the police need. The pressure has got too great for the Commissioner of Police. On television today, for the first time he shifted the blame to the Government. He had been a loyal little public servant, agreeing with the Minister and saying that the Minister was doing everything he could, but today it got too much. The commissioner said on television today: “Yes, I would like more police. Yes, I have asked Government for more police. Yes, I will wait …”. The reason why we have seen the never-ending series of crises associated with 111 calls is that this Minister has ignored the call for additional staff. The Minister must take responsibility, but of course we will just have another inquiry.

I want to talk about the allegations made against John Tamihere in respect of the Waipareira Trust. I said in the House that the people of New Zealand, and members of this House, had witnessed a hatchet job of awesome proportions. It was a hatchet job based on the collusion of the “gang of three”—the chief executive officer of the Waipareira Trust, Reg Rātahi, the treasurer, Ricky Houghton, and the chief financial officer, Bruce Silver Bryant. Then, of course, the “gang of three” became the “gang of four”, as Rodney Philip Hide salivated at the chance to destroy Mr Tamihere’s good name. Why did he, and why did the gang, want to do that? Put simply, Mr Tamihere was the one who was asking questions about $6 million of losses in the trust, after he departed. It was Mr Tamihere who demanded an audit of the trust, and the “gang of three”, based on that, wanted to destroy him, aided and abetted by a member of this House. There is evidence of that.

I quote from the statement of evidence of the White inquiry of 29 November 2004, by one Mere Tunks, a former trust member, who in answer to the question: “Have Reg Rātahi and Bruce Bryant recently made statements at those [trust board] meetings which have indicated to you, that they are conducting a campaign against Mr Tamihere?”, stated: “Yes, they have expressed statements at the meetings: Reg … I’m going to bury John Tamihere; Bruce … ‘He won’t get away with this. I have my reputation in the Accounting world and I will respond and have him out.” Reg Rātahi swore black and blue that the payments from the trust to Mr Tamihere were unauthorised. Rātahi said, hand on heart, that he was sure he would remember if they had been authorised. Rātahi denied there was any documentation. The White inquiry showed him to be a liar. It seems to me that Mr Rātahi destroyed the key document. Luckily the trust’s former auditor had kept a copy. Not only was it found, but the document was in Rātahi’s own handwriting, and the direct-credit payment was physically signed off by Rātahi himself. The man is obviously a liar and had the intent of fabricating a story to bury Mr Tamihere, so as to protect himself.” The reference is the White inquiry, pages 24 to 27.

The dodginess perpetrated by the leaders within the trust continues today. These are the people, of course, that Rodney Philip Hide relied upon in his relentless campaign against Mr Tamihere. Let us look at the dodginess. The trust chief executive officer, Rātahi, formed and is a director of a company called Rescare Services 2001 Ltd. This company is contracted to the Waitematā District Health Board—to the tune of $120,000 a year, to provide a respite residential care facility on an as-required basis. The contract is personal and is in direct competition with the trust that Rātahi is the chief executive officer of. Furthermore, accounts for this company have run through the trust accounting operations, at no cost. A $10,000 amount from the trust was used to finance GST and PAYE for this personal company.

Did the trust’s treasurer, Ricky Houghton, and the trust’s chief financial officer, Bruce Silver Bryant, know of this? Of course they did. In their executive positions within the trust, they knew the lot. In fact, Mr Bryant is paid $15,000 a month, for 1 day’s work a week, to be the guardian of the trust’s guardian money. I have significant documentation on Mr Bryant. For instance, in relation to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, he was on the ruling wānanga council when $7 million was being approved to purchase a company owned by his son and daughter-in-law. He incorporated Oma Investments Ltd, which has received $12 million from the wānanga. Why did Rodney Hide not identify the chief financial architect of the wānanga when the ACT party was attacking the Wētere family?

Mr Bryant is not only the financial controller at Waipareira Trust, he is also the sole executive director of a call centre that has lost in excess of $3.5 million and overseen the sale of property to cover up his mistakes of $3 million. There is a company called Stand and Deliver Contracting Ltd. A company search revealed that it was a company incorporated, again, through the Waipareira Trust but owned by Reg Rātahi and managed by his daughter, Rachael Morris. The trust’s offices are being used, again, without the trust’s authority, this time for immigration consultancy advice. I am further advised that the Henderson Criminal Investigation Bureau is investigating allegations of immigration rorts.

I will make available letters, dated 2 and 4 August 2004, that advise the Waipareira Trust Board that Rodney Philip Hide had been called into the trust, and that a number of allegations would be made against Mr Tamihere. We also know that $410,000 was spent by the trust—wasted by the trust—on lawyers, accountants, and private investigators to “fit up” John Tamihere. What is the result? We still do not know why the $6 million that Mr Tamihere sought to bring to the trust’s attention was lost. We do now know, though, that two high-level inquiries cleared Mr Tamihere, and we now know that the “gang of four” will be seen by the people of New Zealand for what they are. What are they so desperate to cover up? Why did the nasty, self-confessed scam-buster, Rodney Hide, not uncover what I uncovered? Maybe it was because it did not suit his purpose. Those people should be made accountable for their actions, and I look forward to them reaping the whirlwind from the New Zealand people.

I lay this final statement before the House: Mr Hide has never apologised for assassinating the character of Dover Samuels and his family; he has never apologised to the people of New Zealand for the Investors International scandal, even though he had been advised it was dodgy; and he has never apologised to Mr Tamihere and his family since Mr Tamihere was cleared. There is a nasty, nasty pattern of behaviour, and the people of New Zealand will hold the member Rodney Hide accountable for it.

Madam Speaker, I ask for your indulgence, as I have a number of documents I would like to table. I seek leave to table a statement of evidence to the White inquiry, evidencing that there was a process of bonus payments, and that Rātahi and Bryant indicated they would bury Mr Tamihere.

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

I seek leave to table my second document, which is a Bell Gully letter indicating to the Serious Fraud Office that Mr Rātahi’s evidence to them must be treated with suspicion, given the way he endeavoured to frame John Tamihere for taking unauthorised bonuses.

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

I seek leave to table two letters, dated 2 and 4 August 2004, advising the Waipareira Trust that Mr Hide had been called into the trust and that a number of allegations would be made against Mr Tamihere.

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

I seek leave to table a statement of evidence taken from Mr Dave Peppiatt, a real estate agent, indicating that Mr Rātahi was not into social conscience, and that he wanted 25 percent of any deal the gentleman put to the Waipareira Trust.

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

I seek leave to table Companies Office documents in relation to Rescare Services 2001 Ltd, whose director is one Reg Rātahi, a shareholder.

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

I seek leave to table an email from the chairperson of the Waitematā District Health Board, indicating that Rescare Services was contracted for $120,000 per year.

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

I seek leave to table a Companies Office series of documents with regard to the Stand and Deliver Contracting Ltd, demonstrating that the company was incorporated through the Waipareira Trust but owned by Mr Rātahi.

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

I seek leave to table a Companies Office document noting that Mr Bryant incorporated Oma Investments, which received $12 million from Te Wānanga.

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

Finally, I seek leave to table notes from the trust board in respect of accounting problems of the trust, provided by chartered accountants and summarising that trustees were hopelessly misinformed on the true position of the trust.

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

What a difference a couple of years makes! I remember when those members opposite used to spend all their energy in trying to defend the Waipareira Trust.

Let me talk about something that is of concern to all New Zealanders—the protection of the citizens of New Zealand. How is it that Helen Clark expresses her confidence in George Hawkins, when her own party, the Labour Party, clearly does not? Let us just read the list of who was put above George Hawkins when the Labour Party came to its selection. That outstanding Minister Parekura Horomia is at No. 5. Dover Samuels is at No. 10. That outstanding performer in the House Taito Phillip Field is at No. 13. That great man over there Mita Ririnui, well known to New Zealanders for his sterling works, is at No. 15. Judith Tizard, the “Minister of Knitting”, is at No. 18, and Luamanuvao Winnie Laban is at No. 20. That great campaigner for New Zealanders’ rights Mahara Okeroa is at No. 22—way up at No. 22. Then, of course, we have that well-known MP for all good things Jill Pettis at No. 24.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: What number are you on the ACT party list?

Oh, thank God I am not on the Labour Party list! Then we have the great parliamentarian for the Labour Party, Mr Ashraf Choudhary, at No. 25.

What is the No. 1 issue confronting New Zealanders? It is police resourcing: the fact that when we ring 111 we cannot get help, and that when a person’s dairy gets robbed that person cannot get help. There is a Minister of Police who cannot perform, and Labour Party officials had originally put him down at No. 25 on the list—below all those MPs, below all those Ministers—and George Hawkins has too much dignity to take that role. I can see why they put him at No. 25.

💬 Simon Power: Why is that?

Well, just around from his electorate office there is a dairy, and that dairy gets robbed once, twice, or three times a month. People just walk in. The police know where they live, they know their names. Those people could be caught in 5 minutes. They are on video, and I can confirm that to this House. I have seen the video and the perpetrators can be recognised perfectly. [Interruption] Dover Samuels thinks that that is funny. Those people walk in off the street, take their bread, take their Coke, and take a bag of chips. They might also take a pie or some cigarettes—and then they walk out.

The dairy owner rings the police, but the police write a letter saying they are too busy, and George Hawkins, whose office is along the road, does not know about it. What is Helen Clark’s response? Her response is to bag the sergeant—the hard-working Sergeant Fogarty, a front-line police officer—for writing the letter. Is that not the classic response of Helen Clark—to bag the messenger? She did not say that what he said was wrong. She said that his letter was ill-advised—because it ran counter to the spin she wants in order to say that crime rates are down.

I will tell members why the crime rate is down. Just down the road from the dairy—whose owner has reported robbery only four times, but who has been robbed maybe two dozen times in a year—is a bakery. That gets robbed more regularly. Not once has the baker complained to the police—not once. I asked the baker why not. He said: “Why would you bother?”. Why would anyone bother complaining to the police when they do not come, but just file the complaint? That is what is happening under this Government, and Dover Samuels thinks it is funny. Dover Samuels thinks it can be denied, but he—like George Hawkins—does not know what is happening along the road.

We learned today that in south Auckland—the Counties-Manukau Police District—there are 1,167 unallocated cases. Those are cases under investigation that do not have a police officer investigating them.

This is the first opportunity I have had to address the House since making a substantive personal statement on 3 November 2004, and since resigning my ministerial warrants. That personal statement pre-empted the findings of the White inquiry and my clearance by the Serious Fraud Office, and it has proven to be true. Firstly, I thank the rank-and-file Kiwis in the heartland who reserved their judgment, and who were extraordinarily kind and fair to me, but particularly to Awerangi and the family. Secondly, I acknowledge the support and commitment of my caucus colleagues in this House over this period. It is important in our democracy that politicians are placed under significant scrutiny, and that the media ask the hard questions about politicians’ conduct. The media has a right to ask searching questions, to opine on illegality or wrongdoing, and to enter the grey zone where they can actually make news on values and issues of standards, ethics, and morality. That is important and I have withstood that intense scrutiny. A new level of accountability has been set for MPs, and I welcome that.

I now want to pose questions of my own to the media, particularly concentrating on the very cosy and close relationship between Duncan Garner at TV3 and his soulmate, Rodney Philip Hide. I do that as a messenger, so I say to my dear media colleagues they should not shoot the messenger, but should listen to the message. There is no doubt that Rodney Philip Hide and Duncan Garner were called into the Waipareira Trust as early as August 2004 to help shape, frame, and put together the architecture for the hatchet job that was released in the House on 14 October, or thereabouts, of 2004. The main architect in bringing them together at the Waipareira Trust was Duncan Garner’s uncle, known as Bruce Silver Bryant, the chief financial adviser at the Waipareira Trust. Now to be fair to Duncan Garner, Mr Bryant is actually the uncle of his de facto wife, Mihingarangi Forbes. She works for TV3, on 20/20. Mr Bryant contacted Duncan Garner to provide him with the exclusive scoop. Duncan Garner did not investigate it; he did not do anything.

My questions are these: did Duncan Garner and Rodney Hide know that Bruce Silver Bryant was investigated for taking backhanders and inducements in an insurance scam? Did they know that the same Bruce Silver Bryant was investigated for wrongfully signing off financial audits in a multimillion-dollar insurance collapse? That has all been reported in the Independent business newspaper. Did they know, when the ACT party was attacking Te Whare Wānanga o Aotearoa, that Bruce Silver Bryant was the main financial adviser and architect to Rongo Wētere in the wānanga? Did they know that “uncle” Bruce Bryant designed the scheme to move $7 million from the wānanga to a company owned by his son, who was married to Rongo Wētere’s daughter? Did they know that Bruce Bryant designed the company known as Oma Investments, which the ACT party attacked? And did they know that Bruce Bryant resigned from Oma Investments only this month—March 2005? Why did Duncan Garner and Rodney Hide protect “uncle” Bruce Bryant, but attack Mr Wētere?

It is one thing for the media to report the news, but it is another thing when Duncan Garner, his uncle Bruce Silver Bryant, and Rodney Hide get together to manufacture the news solely for rating purposes. The toll that others have had to pay for that behaviour is significant. The human carnage is devastating. The questions are: did Duncan Garner and Rodney Hide know that Reg Rātahi was an Inland Revenue Department tax inspector for 18 years, did they know that Bruce Bryant holds himself out to be a tax specialist, and did they know that Mr Bryant and Mr Rātahi oversaw payments that they knew they were responsible for the tax on? Well, we know that a decent journalist called Audrey Young from the New Zealand Herald, 7 days into the hatchet job, produced an account dated 21 October 2004 entitled “The case for and against John Tamihere”. A journalist who was just asking some simple questions received the right answers, and the White inquiry reached the same conclusions. The question now is: did Duncan Garner and Rodney Hide accept and know that information? No, they continued on, day after day, making it up.

Now, TV3 obviously does not pay very well, because—here is the question—I ask whether Duncan Garner has an independent media consultancy business. If so, who are its clients and are they associated with Rodney Hide? The Parliamentary Library will provide evidence that Duncan Garner has Rodney Hide rating at 2 percent to 3 percent in the polls, and that he has an 80 percent disapproval rating amongst Kiwis, yet he gets the lion’s share of television time on TV3. That is a very cosy relationship. It is not the business of the press to manufacture, make up, frame, or put together the architecture. It is not the business of Duncan Garner and TV3 to collude and conspire with Rodney Philip Hide.

A lot of people would say that one should not have a go at the media, because they have thousands and thousands of tonnes of ink. Rodney Hide knows all about Oscar Wilde, so he will know all about that. But the reality is that members on the Government side of the House want to be given a fair go. They do not want the manufacturing of the news and the conspiracy that has occurred with Bruce Bryant and Rodney Philip Hide. So I would say to Duncan Garner that he should give them a fair go or get a real job.

I seek leave to table the article that Audrey Young penned 7 days after the hatchet job began.

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

I seek leave to table a large range of articles printed in the Independent business newspaper, authored by Jenni McManus and Gareth Vaughan, indicating that Bruce Silver Bryant is quite a dodgy bloke.

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

It is nice to have so many turn up for a general debate speech at this early hour of the evening.

💬 Hon Member: We are looking forward to it.

Thank you. During question time today I asked the Minister for the Environment about the effectiveness of the packaging accord. I asked, not because I think that non-recyclable milk containers are the greatest problem or even, on their own, a significant problem, but they certainly are a problem for many of the groups and individuals around the country who spend their time trying to combat the amount of stuff we throw away.

Non-recyclable containers on their own are part of a much bigger, much more insidious, and much more threatening problem. Our throwaway practices do not end with milk cartons—there is little that we make or use that is not made to be thrown away. Although it may be encouraging to think that it is OK to use something if we recycle it, it is not possible to reclaim all the energy that goes into producing and transporting all the stuff we throw into the ground at the rate of something like 10 million kilograms every day in this country. The packaging accord is one mechanism for dealing with an important element in the waste stream. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will members please be seated and give the speaker a fair go.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is no secret that we have had our misgivings about the accord, but this latest package is an opportunity for the signatories to the accord to say that we can make it work by telling Meadow Fresh to get its act together. I would not be discouraged by that; in fact, we are mightily encouraged by that. If they cannot do so, then we will have to say to the Minister and her accord partners that it is time to look seriously at container deposit legislation.

As I said earlier, non-recyclable milk containers are part of a much bigger and much more threatening problem. As important as recycling is, it is important that we move beyond the mindset that says that providing we recycle the products we take home and throw away, all will be well. It will not. On a seriously overheating finite planet, it is not possible to recover the energy that goes into producing products, let alone packaging them. If we add all the other products, from appliances to furnishings, and even motor vehicles and buildings, that are deliberately designed with a limited shelf life—indeed, they are deliberately designed to fall apart—then it is clear that the throwaway mindset is a major contributor to both peak oil and climate change.

Although the environmental implications of waste are significant, the social implications are, I believe, much worse. It is not possible to spend our lives shopping every waking hour, taking stuff home and throwing it away, and then doing it again the next day without working seriously long hours. There is not a party in this House that does not express concern for families. I would suggest that what families need is time, not stuff. We cannot spend our time shopping until we are silly and still have time to spend talking with our kids, talking with our families, and actually being families. It takes time and energy to be a family and a friend, and that energy, currently, is going into shopping. When families are constantly bombarded by messages to consume, we inevitably wind up with mum, dad, and the children all working to participate in the feeding frenzy that is today’s shopping culture. When this stuff threatens to make our planet uninhabitable at the same time, it is doubly tragic. So my plea is that we get our act together, stop taking home stuff that is likely to degrade the planet seriously, and take time out to enjoy life, and that the next time we get a long weekend, do not spend it shopping.

Debate interrupted.