General Debate

In this morning’s Dominion Post, the deputy leader of the once-great National Party, Gerry Brownlee—not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, said Catherine Judd, the president of ACT—said that the National Party was going to announce its list in August. It was not going to do it beforehand; it was going to do it in August, when a September election seems scheduled. Now, what does that mean? Is that a party that is confident about its ability to put a list together and weather the disappointment of many folk? I do not think so.

It seems to me that the idea behind the National Party’s plan of putting its list together just weeks before that list is put to the people is that it wants to manage problems. It does not want a situation to arise where those people who might not do too well on the list—for example, Katherine Rich, Georgina te Heuheu, or Pansy Wong—would want to kick up a stir. National would not want to have people who were ranked lower than they should be—people like Lockwood Smith, Maurice Williamson, Clem Simich, or Wayne Mapp—getting upset, and it would not want them joining the forces who are already pretty unimpressed with the current leader of the National Party; people like Bill English, Tony Ryall, Nick Smith, Lynda Scott, or Roger Sowry—and on it goes actually. There is a majority against Dr Brash there now; they just do not want to trigger it, so it is never going to be happening before August.

What is really interesting is that the National Party has never taken that long over announcing its list before. We read in black letter print this morning that it will be August, and that tells me that the National Party is still in trouble and is still without any particular leadership. That is not a surprise. Its members are not happy campers, because they cannot stop flip-flopping. Here is a list of the flip-flops. Without any sort of explanation of them, they go like this. Do members remember the nuclear policy flip-flop, the superannuation policy flip-flop, the tax cuts flip-flop, the primary healthcare flip-flop, and the Kiwibank flip-flop—do members remember that one?—the TVNZ flip-flop, the school zoning flip-flop, the Employment Relations Act flip-flop, the Holidays Act flip-flop, and the tangi leave flip-flop? Do members remember the flip-flop on apprenticeships? Do members remember the flip-flop on prisons? Do members remember the flip-flop on the prostitution law reform legislation? But we have another one. It is the Department of Conservation flip-flop, and it is a dinger. It is a cracker because it is a double flip-flop—a flip-flop, flip-flop. The logic of the double flip-flop goes like this. A couple of weeks ago Dr Brash arrived at Molesworth Station by helicopter. He was late, was he not?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: He was late.

He was late. He came clattering down on top of the existing speakers and rushed out of his helicopter. Then he hid behind a truck so that he could read his notes and have somewhere to put them, and then he slavishly read them out. He insulted the Department of Conservation and the Landcorp workers, which was a bit of a shame because they were hosting—

💬 Simon Power: Not the Landcorp workers; just the Department of Conservation.

No—the Department of Conservation and the Landcorp workers. It was a bit of a shame because they were the hosts of the event. But that did not matter to him. Then he was unable to stay for a cup of tea and spend a bit of time mixing and mingling. He was back into his helicopter—clatter, clatter, clatter—back up into the skies, disrupting yet another speaker and pretty much making a nuisance of himself. He said in his speech that tenure review was a deliberate land grab, and the following morning he had to acknowledge that one cannot grab back land that one already owns. But it did not matter that he got his facts wrong, it did not matter that he got all his areas wrong, and it did not matter that he got all his numerical facts wrong and then blamed the runholders for giving him dodgy data. What was really interesting was that the main theme of his speech was that he was going to constrain the Department of Conservation. He was going to keep them doing only stuff that was important for—

💬 Simon Power: Core functions people.

—core functions. He was going to have them with a core task of protecting unique flora and fauna, and endangered species, and cut out all the other stuff. How long did that last?

💬 Simon Power: A long time.

Until Easter. Then what happened was that a motor camp got shut down up near the Whangarei Heads, and in rushed the good Dr Brash. All hell brook loose. “We need more camping grounds.”, he breathlessly advised a startled nation. “We need more camping grounds. DOC must provide them.”, he said. To hell with the core principles of the Department of Conservation—so much so that he decided that we are going to have 25 of them, even though we already have 235 Department of Conservation camping grounds.

What a different atmosphere it is in here having the general debate after dinner. It compares in atmosphere favourably to the normal 3 o’clock to 4 o’clock slot on a Wednesday afternoon. Although Government members might have smiles on their faces for various reasons at 25 to 8 on a Wednesday night, one member most certainly does not have a smile on his face, and that is poor old George Hawkins.

Poor old George Hawkins—that man is really in trouble. He is in serious, serious strife. On Breakfast, for the first time in 6½ years, the Commissioner of Police broke ranks. He just put up his hands and said that enough was enough—that he could not take this any more and just could not defend this Minister for one moment longer. What did he say? He said: “I think, certainly, we do the very best that we can with the resources that we have.” He landed the Minister of Police right in it.

But, of course, it is not the first time that the Minister of Police has been landed in it during 2005. In fact, one of the best quotes of the year came from the Dominion Post this week, which stated: “Even senior party figures previously well-disposed toward him are now privately calling him ‘a serial dummy-spitter,’ ”. Those are the people who used to protect George Hawkins; the people who used to stand beside him in times of strife and need. What do they say now? They say that he is just a serious dummy-spitter. Why? Because in 2002 George Hawkins was No. 15 on the Labour Party list. This time around he was offered No. 25.

Actually, I just happen to note that that is the spot Labour has given Ashraf Choudhary. I bet that David Cunliffe, who works hard into the early hours of the morning, is thrilled with the fact that Ashraf Choudhary has been made No. 25 while he is No. 31. Poor old David Cunliffe—No. 31! What did Ashraf Choudhary do to get the No. 25 slot?

💬 Rodney Hide: A vacant IQ!

I tell Mr Hide that Mr Choudhary did more than nothing—he abstained. He abstained at the crucial time. When the pressure from the ninth floor came on during the prostitution law reform legislation, where was he to be seen? He said: “I dunno, I’ll abstain. What do I get in return?”. Well, Mr Choudhary gets the No. 25 slot in return.

💬 Rodney Hide: How did David Cunliffe do?

David Cunliffe is No. 31. Poor old David Cunliffe. What is surprising about that, though, is that Helen Clark, Mike Williams, or Michael Cullen did not have the courage to ring George Hawkins to tell him that he was No. 25; the media helpfully tells us that Annette King had to phone him. “Oh, George, it’s Annette here. A spot of bad news, old chap. You’re going to be No. 25. I’ve been asked to ring you because I’m a mate of yours. So I said to the Prime Minister, ‘No problem, Prime Minister, I’ll phone him, I’ll tell him.’ ” The serial dummy-spitter spat the dummy, and the whole thing went to custard.

Now Mike Moore’s rump is left—it is not on the list. Outside of the feminist cabal is Mike Moore’s rump: John Tamihere, Clayton Cosgrove, Ross Robertson, Harry Duynhoven, Damien O’Connor, and Tim Barnett—actually I should not put Tim Barnett in that category. All of them are there—Mike Moore’s rump. What is going on with those guys? They have just been left out. Marian Hobbs has come in at No. 9, because she knows she is gone. She knows that she cannot win Wellington Central. The insurance policy is locked into place.

Russell Fairbrother, the man who got the hospital pass of the year to chair the select committee considering the foreshore and seabed legislation, is a guy who carried the weight of a nation on his shoulders for the best part of 6 months, and he is No. 38. He is pleased that Ashraf Choudhary is No. 25. He is pleased that Ashraf Choudhary, who did nothing—who abstained—is No. 25, while he carried the most important piece of legislation in this Parliament. What did he get? “Cheers, thanks for coming, Russell, you’re No. 38. Thanks for your help, we appreciate it. By the way we’ll make Choudhary No. 25.” That is a very good signal to the Labour Party caucus. It is unbelievable.

Steve Chadwick, the chairperson of the Health Committee, is No. 33. Darren Hughes, the junior whip, like him or not, beavers away here into the early hours of the night, and he came in at No. 34. He is pleased that Ashraf Choudhary is No. 25, though. He is absolutely delighted that Ashraf Choudhary is No. 25. What does it tell people? It says that the Labour Party is in trouble, is divided, and will be conquered.

I point out for those listening at home on their crystal sets that that was Simon Power. One thing we know is that he will see none of it, because after the next election, when the National Party goes through the bloodletting that will happen after a defeat, Simon Power will be reshuffled and he will be sitting out in the lobby. He has been such a disappointment. He came in with such high hopes. The general story is that when the media writes a member up, that member should be very, very scared, because what usually happens is that he or she will be on a very slippery slope.

The real problem with the National Party now is the fact that most people can see that it is hopeless and will not make it in the next election. Commentator after commentator says this. John Armstrong said that the impression of the National Party now is that it does not think that it can win and its MPs are instead jostling in readiness for the bloody aftermath. That is what the story is. Even Don Brash himself has made that comment. He said: “National MPs backed me, not just because they thought I could win, but because they thought I could lose less badly, and then take the fall.” What kind of leader says that? It is like running out on to the field to play a footy game, aiming to get second, and hoping that one does not lose by too much. That is the kind of inspiration he shows.

Pete Hodgson has talked about the “helicopter Leader of the Opposition”. It was not just the fact that he helicoptered into a meeting. The problem here is that he is hardly ever here. He says that he is out shaking hands around the country. Of course, what happened was that he helicoptered to that Federated Farmers meeting, did not have time to shake hands with anybody, read his speech, hopped in the helicopter, and went again. That is his idea of meeting the people.

Of course, there were many flip-flops, and some of them were on the youth justice area. There was a big plan to try to get National up in the polls again. National had the idea that parents of delinquents could be ordered to attend parent courses and fined up to $2,500 if they did not comply as part of National’s plan to clamp down on youth offending. So Don Brash, the day after, decided he would go on the radio to explain that. The presenter said: “All right, Mr Brash, so give me a typical kind of situation under which you think this policy would apply; a parenting order.” Mr Brash said: “Well, I haven’t myself read in detail the stuff in the UK.” The presenter said: “Presumably the youth justice system was dealing with them in some other way, anyway.” Dr Brash: “I can’t answer that question. I simply don’t know.” The problem is that if one is to try to sell a policy, it is really important to know something about it before one goes on national radio and makes a fool of oneself.

There has been enough talk about Dr Brash, the corned beef, the peas, and the home-made pyjamas, so let us have a look at the rest of it. Dr Brash said this: “I’ve got some very good people in my top two rows.” Well, let us look at some of them. Of course, the most able was Katherine Rich, and she has gone. That shows that the National Party cannot work with independent, strong-willed women. I did not agree with everything she said, but one had to say that she was capable, and she is now gone. Then, of course, there was the resurrection of old Gerry Brownlee. I thought it was a bit unfair on Gerry Brownlee when they said that he was not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Given the dimness over there, he is quite a bright bulb in their Christmas tree.

What about Bill English? He was being so hopeless that he was dumped as the National Party leader. People forget that. Most people would say that he was quite a good, reasonable, provincial player but no captain of the All Blacks. I think that would be the thing that goes on his tomb. What about Nick Smith? He now wants to set up 25 “National Party holiday parks” around New Zealand. Can members imagine anything so frightening as a National Party camping ground? It would be like Hi-de-Hi! on Valium. All the kids would be frightened. They would be running into the sea saying: “All these National Party people, they’re out trying to organise us. They want us to do things and play games. My God, why don’t they just leave us alone!”, and that is what the rest of the country would say. Most people would be bored with it. Imagine having 25 National Party camping grounds around the country! The most important thing that that would ensure is that those grounds are never ever used. What about Tony Ryall? We call him Oscar over here, because he looks like he is trying to earn one every time he talks in Parliament. The rest of them are completely hopeless. They will not be around after the next election.

That member is keen to get involved in personal derogatory politics and does not give a hoot about the real issues that face the people of New Zealand. The reason George Hawkins needs to go is that he is letting down the real people of New Zealand. Members opposite think it is funny that there are seven rape cases in south Auckland—

💬 Rodney Hide: Nine.

—nine, Rodney Hide confirms—that have not been investigated. The junior whip would have seen the Prime Minister laughing about it in the House today, rather than showing some care and compassion for the people who have been subjected to serious crime.

I raise with the House the incompetence of George Hawkins and his dealings concerning leaky homes. Thousands of New Zealanders are being confronted with bankruptcy because of what has happened to their homes. George Hawkins was the Minister in charge. When he was notified there was a problem he did nothing for 18 months, and that ensured that another 1,500 families ended up with substandard homes. But George Hawkins had the answer. He set up the weathertight leaky homes resolution service. He promised that that would be a speedy and quick resolution process. Well, it has been going for 2½ years.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: For George, that is speedy.

My colleague Maurice Williamson says that 2½ years might be speedy. Do members know that only 10 percent of the 2,700 cases have been resolved? At the current rate that George Hawkins’ resolution service for owners of leaky homes is going—there are no more claims—it will take 20 years to resolve their problems, and this Government calls that a speedy, quick resolution service! Well, I would hate to see a slow one.

Then we had the awful plight of the Cox family, which was typical of those families affected by leaky homes. The builder has gone into liquidation, so too has his certifier. So what did George Hawkins say to the Cox family in Whangarei, who look like they will go bankrupt, whose home is so shonky that it is recommended for demolition, and whose home was built after George Hawkins was told of the problem, but did nothing? He said that they should go to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. They have. Do members know who went to the mediation? The family went. There was no certifier, no builder, and no representative from the council. When I asked the Minister yesterday what advice he had for the Cox family in Whangarei, he said that he did not have any and that they should go back to the resolution service. That is great. They will go back to adjudication, and nobody else will be there.

This is a disgrace. The good reputation of the New Zealand Police has been dragged into the gutter by George Hawkins, Minister of Police. The largest and most important asset of thousands of New Zealanders has been completely eroded and ruined, families are destitute, and we have had totally inadequate answers from George Hawkins, as the Minister in charge of housing It is very simple: George Hawkins should go. If George Hawkins does not go, a whole lot of Labour members will go with him, because New Zealanders will not put up with that sort of incompetence—incompetence with regard to the police, and incompetence with regard to his administration as Minister of Internal Affairs of those important issues concerning New Zealand homes.

George Hawkins is an embarrassment, and the Labour Party knows it. That is why it gave him such an appalling list ranking. Why is it that members opposite defend the indefensible? Why is it that they laugh when they hear that nine rape cases have been sitting around since Christmas, uninvestigated? Why is it that they laugh when they see that the police are totally under-resourced to be able to do their jobs and provide for law and order? Those issues matter. If George Hawkins will not go, Labour should go.

I am usually quite enthusiastic when I stand to make a contribution in the House. I am usually inspired, and look forward to a very intelligent and inspiring debate. Tonight I am sad, irrespective of the wailings of the Opposition and the contributions made tonight. This is one of the first times, in the long time I have been in this House, that I am actually saddened to stand to make a contribution. I feel that I am looking at a tangi. I feel that there is a climate of death.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Rigor mortis!

Rigor mortis is yet to set in. I feel saddened because there is a lot of custom associated with death. Sometimes it is celebrated as a wake, and sometimes there is celebrating before the death. Tonight I am sad, and do members know why? It is because I look across to the other side of the House and I see members who should be in the mortuary.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Get the body bags!

I have listened to what they said, and they are not on this planet. I look at Maurice Williamson, who was once an honourable Minister—he is still an honourable member—and I know that behind all the speeches his colleagues have made he is actually thinking. One of the things he is thinking is: “Where are my friends? Have we got any friends?”.

The National members used to have friends—they were actually appropriately named ACT party friends. When I get up in the morning and listen to Radio Pacific, I hear that the best friend the National Party has ever had has jumped the waka and is teaming up with Rodney Hide. When we heard the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt talking about the benefits of MMP, one has to wonder how lonely can it be to have no friends in this House. Yet we have members of the Opposition talking away about my friend George Hawkins.

Maurice Williamson knows very well that when he was Minister he was never accountable for the operations of Transit New Zealand or Transfund, and the actions and the implementation of the practical aspect of his responsibilities. He knew the lines of demarcation between being a Minister, and trying to get out there and fill the potholes with metal. He knows all about that. It is exactly the same with my friend George Hawkins. The responsibility for operational matters is known in this House, and if there was ever a suggestion that a member of Parliament or a Minister should, in some de facto way, be a chief executive and responsible for operations this House would be in an uproar. Every member of this House knows that, yet my colleague George Hawkins has been asked some of the most outrageous questions. They expect him to put on a uniform and do the beat. Come on! The Commissioner of Police has made his statement in terms of his responsibilities and some of the inadequacies in terms of the police performance, but at least let us tell it straight.

That is why I feel very sad tonight. As I look across the House I see people in a state of rigor mortis. As my friend said, some of them should be in body bags and some of them should be defrosted, but I am saddened because there are no friends there. There is nobody. When we come to the election this year, members will need friends. If they do not have any friends, then “Po Kare Kare Ana”—now is the hour. They should make up their minds. Will the National Party be friends—whanaungatanga kaitiakitanga—of the ACT party? Why do they not get together and have a hui—a bit of a kōrero? I see the face on Maurice Williamson, and that tells the story.

The previous Labour speaker said how sad he was about things, but from a New Zealand First point of view the people who are really sad in New Zealand today are the exporters and those people who are suffering as a result of Labour Party policies that are making it almost impossible for New Zealand to export. They are the really sad people. I have heard nothing from this Labour Party this afternoon or this evening that offers them any help whatsoever. There is no point in slagging off at the National Party all the time. Let us have some policies.

The member who preceded me in this debate who represents the Northland area will surely be concerned about the closure of Tanner Group sawmills, which means the loss of about 160 jobs in Northland, Waikato, and the Coromandel. What has the Northland member said about that? He has not uttered a word or a whisper. He has been sad, but I am sure he is not as sad as those people in Northland who have lost their jobs, many of whom are Māori, and that Māori member who represents Northland Māori does not show any sign of caring for them at all. The company blamed the high New Zealand dollar and increased infrastructure costs for the losses in recent years. The Tanner Group’s problems represent the tip of the iceberg, and major exporters will be facing serious problems by the end of this year.

New Zealand is an exporting nation, and an export-dependent economy. We simply cannot function properly with high interest rates and an overvalued currency. It makes it too hard for exporters to compete on world markets and at the same time makes it easy for importers, say, The Warehouse, to flood local markets. The Labour member for Northland has not said a word about the problems of the Tanner Group. New Zealand First has policies to remedy our exporters’ problems.

Of course, despite the fact that New Zealand has been doing so well in exporting and getting a lot of money into New Zealand for our exports, we still have this incredibly high current account deficit, which is blowing out of all proportions. Our current account deficit has gone up by almost $4 billion in the space of 12 months. This is despite record returns from exports. In the space of 12 months it has gone up to $9.3 billion—and that is just another warning about the real state of our economy. I ask the Labour Party how big a deficit does it have to be before the Labour Party starts to worry about it. It was $5 billion; 12 months later it is $9 billion. What if it is $15 billion in another 12 months, and $20 billion in another 2 years? Will the Labour Party ever start to worry about it and the debt that it is giving to future New Zealanders? There is not a single sign of it whatsoever.

Our exporters’ international competitiveness is seriously diminishing. The adverse effects of foreign ownership in New Zealand are increasing, while the Government can only offer excuses. Alongside the worst-ever current account deficit, we have an appalling net debtor position.

💬 Government Members: Ha, ha!

Labour Party members can laugh. They do not care about what is happening in New Zealand. Dover Samuels can laugh along with the best of them in this House tonight. He does not care about the Tanner Group. The measurement of our net international debt and net overseas equity is now up $5 billion, to a staggering $123 billion, and members of the Labour Party can only laugh.

Of course, some good news for New Zealanders is that the Labour Party has stolen yet another New Zealand First policy. I refer to the Government’s belated recognition of the need to make better use of its superannuation fund, currently valued at $5.7 billion. At its annual conference last year New Zealand First said that we should be investing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in New Zealand. The Labour Party laughed at us when we said that last year—as it always does at our good ideas. But now what is it doing? It is carrying out our good ideas. We are getting a double flip-flop flip-flop in this House—flip-flops from the National Party supporting our policy, and now the Labour Party is supporting our policy, as well.

If one ever wanted an example of an Opposition party leading from the Opposition, it is New Zealand First. New Zealand First has supported the New Zealand Superannuation Fund from day one, not from just the other day, as in the case of another party. We have always said that it should be used for strategic asset allocations, increasing the weighting to alternative assets such as infrastructure, roading, private equity, commodities, forestry, property, and reducing the funds weighting to global listed equities. Thanks to us, not Labour, it is happening now.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When we look across the House we see no National members except for Maurice Williamson, who is sitting in the leader’s chair. I wonder whether there is some news that we need to know.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order and the member knows it.

The expansion of trade within and across the vast Asia and Pacific region is currently propelling the most significant rise in living standards ever experienced by so many people in the history of human civilisation. The race to promote economic development is one that everyone can be excited about because it is a race to eradicate the evil that is poverty and it is also a race to raise environmental standards. Ministers from 52 Asia-Pacific nations yesterday pledged to alter current patterns of production, consumption, and distribution to promote cleaner, environmentally sustainable growth. China has adopted car emission standards that put Western democracies to shame.

Our minority coalition Government has since 1999 been able to advance its progressive agenda only with the cooperation and support of other responsible parties in this Parliament—United Future since 2002 and the Green Party since 1999. Labour, Progressive, United Future, and the Greens are making the MMP system work for people. I am not here to be unfair on the Greens, who have been our natural allies, but I say to the Green Party that when it comes to expanding our economy’s international connections our objective going forward must be to get other nations, from the United States to China and from the European Union to Canada, to give us a fair go. We want them to lower their unfair barriers on our exports. We want global barriers to trade to come tumbling down just as the Berlin Wall came down, just as the Sahara wall that Morocco’s kingdom has built through the Western Sahara will come down, and just as Israel’s apartheid wall through the Palestinian West Bank will crumble.

The Government of China has given us a privileged position at the head of a very long international queue seeking a fair trade deal with China. China is emerging very quickly as the world’s most important manufacturing hub, and the Labour-Progressive Government, precisely because it is forward-looking, is embracing this opportunity for all New Zealanders. It disappoints us in the Progressives that the Green Party is not here with us on this vital issue.

Last year a suggestion was made by the Greens that, if the Green Party were ever to join in our coalition Government it might yet call for trade sanctions against China. That is like saying that New Zealand should consider trade sanctions on the United States because we disagree with its Federal Government’s inhumane opposition to needle and syringe exchange programmes. That is about as futile as having a non-negotiable stance on GE in the 2002 election. Unless the Greens reverse this position on China, they are shutting the door to joining in Government and are inviting other parties to take their rightful place within our centre-left coalition.

I believe that the Greens’ position is intellectually and morally flawed. The Greens say that New Zealand is in a race to the bottom in trading with Asian economies, but in reality New Zealand’s minimum wages have been increasing every year of progressive government. Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in a whole generation. Our relative living standards have at last stopped falling, which they did from 1970 until 1999.

Of course, democrats everywhere must speak up in support of overseas democracy movements and bitterly condemn any attack on human rights in any society, be it Tonga, the US, or China. Leon Trotsky, writing in 1927, described the working proletariat of Shanghai as the most advanced vanguard in the world—the most socially conscious and committed to social justice and democracy of any urban area in the world. I believe that the Chinese working people will uphold that tradition and be seen as that most advanced vanguard for democracy in the world in the years to come. As China becomes more prosperous its democracy will grow. The Chinese will do it themselves.

China is a Third World society pulling itself up to lift the living standards of its people so that they may enjoy the liberties, freedoms, and lifestyles we take for granted here. This Third World nation has recently issued landmark regulations banning cars with poor ecological performance. China’s new rules are strict. Motor vehicles that fail to meet the standards will not be registered by traffic administration departments across China. The World Resources Institute calculates that 42 percent of the cars that the manufacturing giant General Motors sold in 2004 can no longer be sold in the China of 2005. From 2008 China’s regulations will get stricter still.

I urge the Greens to join with the Labour-Progressive Government in opening our doors with China to work for a global economy that is socially just and environmentally sustainable.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.