General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is no surprise today that New Zealand First wants to discuss a matter of very recent public interest. It is well summed up in the Dominion Post headline, “Oops, wrong Iraqi”. This Government has many hundreds of millions of dollars available to it to run the immigration system of our country, and it cannot get things right the first time. It has spent another $23 million especially to manage New Zealand’s immigration risk situation, and it has failed to do that. Who has resolved the problem for the Government? New Zealand First has. Can we fix it? Yes we can, and we will continue to do so. Who is the effective Leader of the Opposition in this House? It is the Rt Hon Winston Peters—that is who it is. He is here, and we are ready to go at any time on this issue or on any other issue. If Labour wants to have an election next week, New Zealand First is ready for that, as usual.

Why can the Government not get this matter of immigration right? The issue has been going on for years and years, and we have warned the Government about it for years and years. The Government is a dreadfully weak organisation. It has changed its Minister of Immigration time and time again, yet the Prime Minister maintains Paul Swain in that office. There he sits abjectly in front of the television cameras, saying that he thought he had got it right, but no, oops, it was the wrong Iraqi. The Government just cannot get it right. Are those the only two examples? Are there more to come? There may be more, and people should watch this space in New Zealand First, where the news will come out first. I am sure that the Minister of Immigration is worrying himself silly as to just what will happen next.

Why can the New Zealand Immigration Service not get it right? Why is it left to people in Bangkok to try to come to grips with Arab names? We warned the Immigration Service about that years ago. It is finally taking New Zealand First’s advice and bringing all those cases back to New Zealand. After all, that person, Mahdi Saleh Khashaly, was travelling not just on a UN passport but also on an Iraqi passport. One would have thought someone in the Bangkok office would have realised that an Iraqi passport backed up by a UN passport should be cause for concern, but no, there is obviously no link with Wellington in the Bangkok office. Its staff do not think twice, and they let those people in.

I asked the Minister today whether New Zealand still had any links with other countries in the loop. In his first supplementary answer he seemed to say yes, but then, when I asked him whether he had received communications of any kind from Australian officials or their staff, or from any other nations that are fearful that New Zealand may have become a stop-off point for back-door entry into other nations via New Zealand by suspected terrorists and those associated with the Saddam Hussein regime, he said no, he had not received any communications. We are outside the loop, as Dr Mapp picked up on so promptly at question time. We are not in the loop. We have been rejected by other countries; we are no longer within the loop.

Despite all that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade may say and try to do, our foreign affairs policy is also in tatters. Mr Goff can travel here, there, and anywhere, and people may say anything to him. But really, if we were in the loop—where Mr Goff should have put us—we would have answers and support from Australia and other countries. But we are not getting that any more. We are really beyond the fringe, in so far as our former allies are concerned. They no longer care to assist New Zealand, because of the policies of this Government.

I also say, as a New Zealand First member of Parliament, that the Government used to accuse us of racism because of our questioning of immigration policy. I ask the Government whether it stands by that accusation now. I really think and believe that Middle Eastern people living in New Zealand today are being badly served by this Government. There must be many people of Middle Eastern origin who have come to New Zealand lawfully, and who are going about their business and are doing everything correctly, but who are now under a cloud because this Government cannot run the Immigration Service adequately. I feel terribly sorry for the Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, and perhaps Egyptians who are living here, because every time that they go out they must wonder whether New Zealanders think that they are al-Khashali or some other person who is hiding in New Zealand. We in New Zealand First say to them that we will do the job properly. We will catch those sorts of people before they come to New Zealand, and if necessary we will pass legislation to get rid of them.

It is fascinating, as we draw closer to an election, that the Opposition parties seem consumed by sideshows and circuses rather than a focus on the sorts of issues that interest ordinary New Zealanders. The speaker who has just resumed his seat failed to demonstrate in any way that, although there is some interest in a bureaucratic botch-up in Bangkok, the man he is so concerned about and has spent his whole speech on is not regarded as a security concern by New Zealand, by any of its intelligence partners, or by the United States; in fact, as I understand it, he has been through a number of those countries.

What the member failed to say, however, is what the Minister of Immigration and his predecessor have done in terms of improving the immigration system in this country. There were 2,500 spontaneous asylum seekers when the leader of that member’s party was deputy leader of the Government, Deputy Prime Minister, in 1997-98. Each year more than 2,500 spontaneous asylum seekers came to this country and flushed their passports down the toilet—and Winston Peters did nothing. He did nothing in 2 years of being Deputy Prime Minister.

What has Paul Swain achieved? He has that figure down by 90 percent. The latest figure is 277 illegal asylum seekers in the last year, under Paul Swain. There were 2,627 illegal asylum seekers under Winston Peters as Deputy Prime Minister. The public can draw their own conclusions about who was effective in immigration.

Then there are those other worthless parties of Opposition—the National Party and the ACT party. What are they interested in at the moment? They are interested in defending Peter Doone as Commissioner of Police, a man who was judged by two independent reports to have acted unwisely and inappropriately when those members were in Government. They are trying to dredge up some ancient history, because they have no policy. They have no direction; they have no leadership; and they have no support from the people of this country.

When the electorate goes to the polls this September, people will make their judgments on the fact that things have become better in their lives under the last 5½ years of a Labour-led Government. They know that this country has outperformed every other country in the Western World in terms of growth—growth rates are the best in the Western World.

New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in the Western World. When the average New Zealander elector goes to the polls, he or she will know that 264,000 additional New Zealanders are working, paying taxes, and earning a good living—better off than ever before. New Zealanders know that under this Government they are spending $1.2 billion less on the unemployment benefit. There are 85,000 fewer New Zealanders on the dole and 6,000 fewer New Zealanders on the domestic purposes benefit.

What is it about that that the National Party does not understand? That is why those members are languishing and low-polling in Opposition, and they will not do any better. They will not do any better because they have absolutely no credibility.

Their leader, Don Brash, has promised this week to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on roads—in what area? The Waikato! By the time that he gets to the Bluff, it will be tens of billions of dollars that he will want to spend.

And he is going to spend another $200 million on defence. Sean Plunket asked: “Well, what are you going to do with it?”; the answer was: “I don’t know.” “What’s your policy?”, Sean Plunket asked; “We will have one by the election.”, Don Brash promised.

That Leader of the Opposition has failed to perform. The front bench has been hopeless. Those members have no policy, they have no vision, they have no direction, and they do not have the support of the average New Zealander, who knows that he or she is better off than ever before under what this Government is doing.

On 1 April this year, 300,000 New Zealanders received an improvement in family support to help with raising their kids. Who in this House would oppose that move? Those members did! Ordinary working families, who needed the help, now have money in their pocket because this Government recognised their need and is managing the country’s economy in a way that that need can be met. As a result of this coming Budget, 300,000 elderly New Zealanders will receive rate relief. What people will vote for in this country is another Labour-led, Clark-led Government.

That was the most encouraging speech I have heard from the Labour Government in a long time. It is encouraging of National’s aspirations and prospects because—let us be very clear—the golden rule in politics is that one never attacks anything that one is not worried about. So that rowdy attack from the angry young man of the Labour Government is an admission that Labour is on the back foot, is disconnected from ordinary New Zealand, and is likely to take a pounding in the coming election.

It is inappropriate in this House to refer to another member as a dishonest person, a liar, or a hypocrite, so I will not say any of those things. But I will ask that people consider the record of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has long been the rule that members using methods of pretending they are not using words to describe a member, and then using them, have been ruled out of order by Speakers. The member has just done that, and I ask you so to rule him out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is true, although it was not quite clear to me where the member was heading. It was not that clear, but what the other member says is true. It is absolutely right, and I would just remind the member of that.

I want to talk about some things that are factual. I want people to make up their own minds about how they interpret those things. The first thing is the issue with regard to a Mr Yelash. Do people remember the situation with Mr Yelash? He was defamed by the Prime Minister, and the taxpayer coughed up $56,000 to cover her. Then there was the case of the Auckland surgeon who was defamed. The Prime Minister had to apologise publicly for that defamation.

There was the “corngate” scandal, in which the Prime Minister initially denied that she had been part of a cover-up—part of a process to make that release legal—but was finally caught out. We had the issue of the Historic Places Trust payout, when the Prime Minister decided that rather than telling the public exactly what the payout was she would confuse the figure with a whole lot of others. She was eventually caught out. Then we had the “paintergate” scandal. Do members remember that? The Prime Minister initially said she had no recollection—she could not remember—but she ultimately had to confess to signing at least six other paintings, having a friend buy that particular painting, and having her office burn it on her behalf, so destroying the evidence.

More recently, there has been the issue of the speeding motorcade charging across the Canterbury Plains at 140 kilometres an hour. But she had no recollection of how that happened. She did not know it was happening. She did not see that the police were stopping people in the small towns and boroughs of Canterbury as she flashed by. She had no recollection and took no responsibility, and now five policemen and one civilian are before the court. Later this year she will be in the court to give her view on that.

The issue is that no responsibility has been taken. The interesting thing is that this pattern of saying: “I don’t remember; I have no recollection; it was not me.”—or, as Homer Simpson would say: “I was not there; it was not me; it did not happen.”—is consistent with the way the Prime Minister has behaved from the day she became leader of this country.

We have seen in recent days the most disgraceful obfuscation of answers around questions relating to her involvement in the constructive dismissal of then Commissioner of Police Peter Doone back in 2000. I do not want to go into matters relating to the commissioner’s behaviour, or otherwise; that is not for me to do. What I do want to talk about is the extraordinary decision by the Prime Minister to tell a newspaper that it was on the right track—that what it wanted to publish as having been said by the commissioner on that particular night at that particular event was not wrong, even though she had on her desk two reports that made it clear that that was not correct. For her to come into the House today and yesterday and simply to say she has no recollection, cannot remember, is sure she would have done so, etc., is simply part of the pattern that has marked her style since becoming Prime Minister.

I think that the Prime Minister owes New Zealanders the truth in this circumstance. It would be so easy for her to make it go away by releasing the brief of evidence that she provided to the court in Mr Doone’s case against the Sunday Star-Times. She could do that quite simply—perhaps by tabling it in Parliament or by releasing it to one of her favourite journalists—in order that her good name might be protected. One has to ask the reason for the hesitance she clearly has about doing so. The idea that it could be because more litigation is coming is nonsense, because if there is nothing wrong there is no basis for litigation. So I want the Prime Minister to accept her responsibility to tell the truth to New Zealanders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The schedule I have in front of me indicates that United Future is due to take the fourth call. If some arrangement has been made to swap those particular slots around to help out the Labour Party, I think that the rest of the House is owed an explanation as to what is going on in this deviation from the schedule.

I thank the member for raising that, but the swap is by arrangement between the parties concerned, and those spots are all tradable.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They don’t like it!

It is not a matter of whether we like it; it is about the procedure here. The Speaker says that he has in front of him an order of speakers. I want an explanation, then, from the Speaker, because I think we are owed it. We have the same list in front of us. Are you now, Mr Speaker, not sticking to the list in front of you? By what process is that list changed? The list we have is not the one you have now.

I thank the member for raising that, but it was unnecessary; I had dealt with the matter. I have no doubt that the list he has in front of him is the same as the one I have here, and I also have no doubt that he will be able to follow it from here on. [Interruption] No further explanations need be made. None will be made. This arrangement is perfectly in order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is it a new one—a fresh one?

Yes. Does this mean that we will still have 12 slots today, and does it mean—I ask because it matters to us—that United Future has given up its slot and will now take a Labour Party slot; if so, which one? I think we are owed an explanation.

Yes. I would have thought that the issues you have raised were quite obvious, but I say that the United Future member will take the next Labour slot. That is the swap. I think that that clears it up.

Let us get the facts right in this situation. Peter Doone, then Commissioner of Police, had been drinking. He had been drinking for 4 hours. He got out of his car and stopped the young constable who had the sniffer and was about to breath-test Mr Doone’s partner, who had also been drinking for 4 hours. He interfered with the young constable who had the sniffer. Mr Doone’s partner, Robyn Johnstone, had been drinking for 4 hours and was driving in the city with her lights off. She was driving around town with her lights off, after drinking for 4 hours.

The Commissioner of Police claimed he and the constable exchanged pleasantries—that was his first reaction. We know now that that was not true. He was found by the Police Complaints Authority to have acted in a way that was undesirable. He was found by the Robinson report to have acted in a way that was inappropriate. Let us make this clear. The Robinson report made it clear that Main and Haldane, the two constables, had been on duty for 5 hours and they were sober. The report also makes it clear that Doone and Johnstone had been drinking for 4 hours, and had both consumed alcohol—at least one of them, a considerable amount. Johnstone drove around town with her lights off.

The National Party criticised them; Jenny Shipley set up the inquiry. And now what is National doing? It is defending the driver, who had been drinking, and the Commissioner of Police, who interfered with a constable in the course of his duty. That is the National Party’s approach.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would help, in this situation, if I made it very clear that the National Party members are not defending any of that behaviour. We are simply asking why the Prime Minister engaged in dishonest discussion with the Sunday Star-Times.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is not a matter of what you are asking. That is not a point of order.

I do want to make it clear, as the Prime Minister has made it clear in this House, and outside, that it is absolutely undeniable that she said that what was said was contested.

I frankly do not think it makes a helluva lot of difference, when the Commissioner of Police wanders up to a young cop who is attempting to breath-test his partner, and says: “We’ll be on our way, then.”, which he claimed he did in the end. First of all he said that they exchanged pleasantries, and then he said: “We’ll be on our way, then.” This is what the National Party is defending. It is defending a Commissioner of Police who intervened and stopped a young constable. National members are saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that there was a contest of views between the sober Main, and Doone, who had been drinking, as to what was said. There was a contest. One thought one thing was said, and one thought the other. We know that that is true. They had different views, and the Prime Minister pointed that out. She pointed out that it was contested.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Get her evidence.

She told the House. She said clearly and absolutely to everyone that there was a contest of views as to what was said. But even if we take the generous view—the Doone view—of the event, the Commissioner of Police said: “We’ll be on our way, then.” to the constable who was wandering up with the breath-testing device to test a former Land Transport Safety Authority official, Ms Johnstone, who had been drinking, and was driving.

We have just seen an excellent example of the rot at the heart of the Labour Government. Trevor Mallard has just now tried to make a fact out of an assertion that Helen Clark made in the House today. He is wrong. It is not undeniable that she told the press that there were contesting views about what was said. I will tell Mr Mallard what Helen Clark said—that she was confident she would have advised the journalist there were contesting views. Then Trevor Mallard got up and said that it was an undeniable fact. Well, I welcome him to have that discussion with the Sunday Star-Times people who spoke to Helen Clark five times.

What was the Prime Minister of New Zealand doing having five conversations with newspaper journalists, pumping another bullet into a Police Commissioner who was already dead for all the reasons that Trevor Mallard has outlined? Why was she doing that? Here is the next question. Why did the newspaper get it so wrong after five conversations? Why is it that there were five conversations, and that the newspaper published the story based on the Prime Minister’s confirmation of what was said? She got up, and she did not actually deny it. She just said she was confident she would have advised—because she cannot remember.

Well, here is a new word for parliamentary use: a “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”. Has that been sprayed around this House a lot in the last 5 years by a Prime Minister who has a record of form as long as one’s arm!

I ask long-serving members in this House what Prime Minister of New Zealand has been involved in two serious police investigations. I ask members to name one Prime Minister who was asked by the police to answer their questions about the Prime Minister’s activities and who would not answer them. In the “paintergate” inquiry Helen Clark would not answer police questions about things such as destroying evidence. She would not answer the questions. Now she is in a police investigation—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in the Standing Orders that interjections should be rare and to the point. Through both of the National Party speeches so far, Trevor Mallard has interjected almost without stopping even for a breath. I ask that I be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

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

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I will raise a fresh point of order, if you want to rule, Mr Speaker, but it is not quite related to this. Of course the member has the right to silence, and any member who cannot take the heat can ask for that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That request has been made, and we could adhere to that, but I think it is better to have a little bit of noise in the Chamber—I think we would all agree on that. I was about to pull the member up, but I thought that he was going to desist at that point. I have to say that when the Hon Phil Goff was speaking there was far more noise from a far greater number of people than there is now. But the member’s interjections are consistent, and I ask him to cease doing that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is also in Speakers’ Rulings that members should not ask rhetorical questions, because if they do they will get a response. The member asked about four in a row, and he got a response.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a debating issue, yes.

There have been two serious police investigations. There was the defamation suit, when the Prime Minister tried to hide from the House the fact that she had made a payout. We then had “corngate”, a trail of half-truths and spin that culminated in the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet withholding all the incriminating documents a month before an election.

Then there have been any number of incidents in this House when the “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”—has been used. I will give just one example. When some business leaders made public statements that the Government should try to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, Helen Clark decided that that had never been a target the Government had set, despite the fact that Government members had talked about it for 2 years. She decided that they had never said that—that it had never been Government policy. It was not just that the policy had changed, but that it had never ever existed as a target.

The point about all this is that the half-truths and the manipulations are what hold this Labour Government together. That is how it is run from the top. Each one of these investigations, half-stories, forgetfulnesses, and “Clarkisms” are just little snapshots that the public gets of the way this Government and this Prime Minister do their business.

I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to address the House on the first report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the nature and extent of the sex industry in New Zealand, released by the Ministry of Justice just a few weeks ago. The committee was required by law to give an assessment of the number of sex workers in New Zealand as soon as possible after the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act—and I concede that one positive feature of the Act is that we are able to get better information on the nature of the sex industry in New Zealand. I believe we should have had that information before we looked at changing the law. However, at least now we do have some information.

The report, which was tabled in April 2005, almost 2 years after the Act passed, is rather late. Nevertheless, it is useful. But with the make-up of the committee mandated to include two persons nominated by the Minister of Commerce to represent the operators of prostitution businesses, and three persons nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, out of a total of 11 members, I think many New Zealanders wondered whether the report would be so biased as to be of no use. It comes as some surprise, really, to see that the report seems to be reasonably factual—as factual as can be expected, in the light of the difficult circumstances associated with gathering information about the sex industry. Paul Fitzharris is to be commended for his role as chair in guiding the committee, and I would like to take the opportunity to pay respect to one of United Future’s nominees to the committee, Sue Martin, a former national coordinator of End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand)#, who had to resign after illness and passed away last year. I thank the Minister for appointing Mr Alan Bell, the new ECPAT New Zealand national coordinator, as her replacement.

One of the most disturbing findings of the report, though, is the number of under-age young people, predominately female, involved in the sex industry in New Zealand, particularly those involved in street soliciting, 20 percent of whom are estimated to be under age. That is something we should all be very concerned about, because those who supported this legislation 2 years ago said that the legislation would do something about it. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective part of the report, of course, tries to downplay that issue and deny it, by stating on page 49: “However, the NZPC”—the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective—“did not consider there were significant numbers of under age sex workers working in the industry.” I want to ask the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective what it considers to be significant numbers. Two hundred young people in New Zealand under the age of 18 being caught up in the web of prostitution is, I consider, very, very significant. I wonder whether the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective would be concerned if there were 1,000 of them. How many would it consider to be significant? I believe we ought to consider even one person in this country being caught into the inherent exploitation and degradation of prostitution to be very significant, indeed.

But then, it may not come as much of a surprise to find that the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective does not consider the number of under-age sex workers to be significant, because, with at least $300,000 of taxpayer funding, it is promoting prostitution as a glamorous occupation. If one looks at the magazines it produces, such as the Siren magazine, one will see that it often encourages young women to go to Europe and engage in prostitution in order to pay for their OE, which is something I believe that the Government should be withdrawing its funding from immediately. We should consider that even to have one under-age young life on the streets is significant, and that something should be done about it.

What is being done about this appalling situation? Two hundred under-age people are out most nights of the week—perhaps many more than that number, if the truth be known—according to reports that have been appearing in the newspapers lately. On the mean streets of Hunters Corner, Mama Tere acknowledges she is finding more and more young people, and in fact she has seen prostitution quadruple in her experience over the last 2 years. We see headlines such as “Act fails to protect girls”; “Number of prostitutes rises 40 percent”; “Enforce the law”. That is really the problem. The law is no good if it is not going to be enforced by the police. The report reveals that in New Zealand, where we have the incredible situation of so many young women being involved in under-age prostitution, there is one police officer in the Auckland City Police District who is given 45 percent of his time to oversee something like 243 businesses of prostitution and to somehow monitor 360 people on the streets who are engaged in street soliciting. It is appalling. The Minister of Police, in answers to my questions to him earlier today, proudly proclaimed that one prosecution has been made. One prosecution after 2 years is appalling.

I rise in today’s general debate to shine some light once again on the question of Kaitāia Hospital. I realise that the Minister and her associates are rather tired of this topic and wish that the concerned residents of the district would just shut up and accept what the ministry and the Northland District Health Board have decided—that is, that we must make do indefinitely without 24-hour, 7-day-a-week surgical cover and rely on other means to get to Whangarei Hospital, hours away over difficult terrain. However, it is not as simple as that. Many residents of the far north simply do not accept our fate.

I attended a public meeting of the Northland District Health Board in Kaitāia on Monday afternoon of this week, when the venue was so packed that not everyone could get a seat, or even get in the door. I doubt whether there are many district health board meetings around the country that are so enthusiastically attended. I commend the district health board for its courage in holding the meeting and for its clear presentation of the planned $9.3 million redevelopment of our hospital. However, I believe it is the Minister, the ministry, and the Government that must be held to account in this matter, and that the district health board is simply doing its best to implement decisions made, basically, at another level here in Wellington. That is why the future of Kaitāia Hospital is actually a critical political issue in this year’s election campaign for any candidate or any party that wants to win northern votes, and I hope that the local community will continue to make its feelings known to candidates from all parties in the months ahead.

There are a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister of Health and to the Labour Government. Why, when the Far North District is one of the fastest-growing districts in New Zealand and welcomes ever-increasing numbers of tourists each year, does the Government believe it should accept sub-standard hospital care? We are not asking for a high-tech hospital, such as the hospitals provided in Auckland or Wellington, or even in Whangarei. We are asking simply for access to basic services, like the possibility of an appendicitis operation or the setting of a broken arm 24/7. Why is cost used as a reason for not restoring 24/7 cover to Kaitāia, when many thousands of dollars are wasted all the time in transferring patients by helicopter and ambulance to Whangarei, and when the board is currently operating a $2.5 million surplus?

Is the Minister aware of the huge costs placed on a low-income population, members of which are often obliged to find their own transport to Whangarei and back—and that is in an area where there is zero public transport? Is she aware of the practice at Whangarei Hospital of discharging—during the day or in the middle of the night—some far north patients in their pyjamas, with no money or personal support? Has the Minister heard of some of the sad and ridiculous situations that are arising, such as that of a patient with an appendix problem who was expected by Kaitāia Hospital to get himself to Whangarei, even though he was sedated and in considerable pain, or of patients with comparatively minor injuries, such as cut fingers or broken wrists, likewise being required to find their own way south to seek help because it cannot be provided in town?

That is a ridiculous and an unacceptable situation in 21st century New Zealand. All of us should be able to expect a reasonable level of hospital care within the district where we live. For many people in the north, the trip to Whangarei is not the 2½ hours it is from Kaitāia, which is bad enough, but up to 4 or 5 hours if someone comes from one of the more remote settlements. Members in this House will be aware of the explosion that took place in the engineering workshop at Kaitāia College a few weeks ago. Although the service provided by the hospital at that time could not be faulted—indeed, I acknowledge all the effort that went in that day in helping to ensure that no lives were lost—at the same time I think that unfortunate incident raises, yet again, the question about what would happen if we had a crisis of even greater magnitude. For example, what would happen if a tourist bus went off a cliff, or if there was a major vehicle accident or fire? We are a district that engages in high-risk occupations, like fishing, farming, and forestry. We are a growing economy, whose people deserve the same standard of care as the citizens of other provincial districts around the country.

The solution that has been offered to us by the Government and the district health board, although well meaning, is simply not acceptable and simply not enough to meet our needs. I call on Labour to rethink its whole position on Kaitāia Hospital. This is an issue that will not go away, and I challenge the Government to have the daring and the foresight to admit that it has made a mistake, and to start again with the goal of providing the services the far north needs and deserves, not an endless second best.

I want to talk today about the total disrespect that Don Brash has shown to the voters in the Waikato—a huge taxpayer base in this country—and to share with the House something I read this afternoon in a newspaper: “It’s nice to know Don Brash cares. This week, in Hamilton, the National Party leader said he would get the Waikato Expressway—all 95km of it from Mercer to Cambridge—finished within 10 years. … Sadly”, says the writer, “it sounds more like something you’d read on a Tui billboard than anything that might be achievable.” Yeah right! “But then we are just months away from a general election when political spending pledges multiply like pollen spores in spring. Close examination of Dr Brash’s promise quickly reveals some fatal flaws.”

This is the first: “Among the most obvious is the overhaul of the Resource Management Act required if National is to push through the Expressway project in a decade. That is not a simple task and will require extensive consultation and persuasion to convince anyone it is in the country’s best interests. By its own admission, National says the act, that exists to protect the environment, would need ‘gutting’. Politicians will be extremely wary of such an assertion.”—and I am sure that Simon Upton would agree.

💬 Secondly: “Then there is the issue of cost. National says it will fund the $450 million project by doubling the allocation of petrol tax revenue that goes towards roading, from 18c a litre to 36c”—

💬 Darren Hughes: It won’t add up.

It certainly will not add up, and the figures keep changing in every speech that Don Brash makes. I also remember distinctly that in this House Don Brash and his cronies voted against that motor spirit tax.

The article continues: “Don Brash has yet to say what that will mean to local authorities, ACC and other groups that are currently funded by the petrol tax. Thirdly, the feasibility of negotiating with landowners, completing design work and finding enough skilled labour to get the work done within such a constrained timeframe is highly dubious.”

It goes on: “While this region desperately needs the Expressway completed, and any initiative to push it along is welcome, a reality check is required.”—and where did I find this comment? I found it in the very esteemed newspaper, the Waikato Times.

💬 Simon Power: Let Winnie Laban speak.

No, I tell the member that those words are from the editor—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a well-known Labour Party rag!

DIANNE YATES:—Exactly!—of that well-known Labour Party rag, the Waikato Times.

Would members believe that Don Brash came to Hamilton on Monday and launched—supposedly—a billboard in Hamilton, and that that billboard was second hand? It had been up in Auckland for a couple of weeks, yet he came to Hamilton on a very rainy day claiming he was launching it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He just can’t remember. It’s one of those things about getting old.

Exactly—he cannot remember. I read in the paper this morning that he should be given the “limp jandal” award, as well.

In the same newspaper yesterday is the headline: “Brash pledges Waikato Expressway haste”. Then right alongside we have another headline: “Drivers enjoying new road stretch”. I am sure Paul Hutchison will be pleased about that. The article states: “Drivers on the Waitako Expressway to Auckland are enjoying some of the best conditions in years with the opening of a new section of just-completed road. The southern end of the Longswamp to Mercer section of the Waikato Expressway was opened at Anzac weekend. Transport project manager Eric van der Wel said motorists were now travelling 1km along the north-bound lanes while work began on the two adjacent southbound lanes. The new section takes out dangerous bends. It begins at the end of the Hampton Downs straight”—which I am sure Paul Hutchison will be pleased with—“and finishes near the entrance to the Meremere dragstrip.”

So recent comments made by Don Brash to the Automobile Association in Napier, when he said he was going to put Auckland first, have now been countered by the same person. He does deserve the “limp jandal” award. Then in Hamilton, as I said, he promised $450 million. I have seen other evidence that he has promised $100 million a year over the next 6 years. It really is a strange turn of events.

The only thing the previous speaker proved to this side of the House was that she does not understand anything about road funding.

💬 Darren Hughes: Does Don Brash?

No, Don Brash does not; but neither does the honourable member. I have to say to my colleague Larry Baldock that it is not acceptable for him to come into this House and rave on about prostitution. His party has prostituted itself—big time! It could have stopped that legislation in its tracks. The member claims that his party stopped the cannabis legislation. That would have been in the same mould. He claimed that, but we know that Jim Anderton would not have allowed that legislation to go ahead. It is in the same area as GST on rates—big noise outside; nothing in here. Smoke-free legislation: the same—big noise outside; nothing in here. Civil union legislation is another one—big noise outside; nothing in here. Even with the definition of “family” that party makes a big noise outside but has no knowledge of what a family is when it comes to approving legislation. However, that is just me giving vent to a little steam.

I want to talk about the physiotherapists in this country. Some time ago the Government brought in what it calls the endorsed provider network, and it wanted every physiotherapist in the country to sign up. In theory the scheme is good, because it means that an accident victim does not pay anything. Visits to physios would be free, basically. The taxpayer pays. But because the deal put to the physiotherapists was so poor and because there had been no meaningful consultation, many physiotherapists would not accept it. A few in Christchurch accepted it, but effectively none in Auckland, and very, very few in the Waikato area and other areas, did. [Interruption]

The member opposite thinks it is a joking matter. Let me say that it is far from that. The Minister for ACC, through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), has given instructions to bring these guys into line. It is the biggest bully-boy tactics I have ever heard of in New Zealand. They are being told that they are subject to a random audit, but, in fact, they are being audited by the ACC fraud unit. The ACC accreditation standards are flawed. Some argue they are non-existent.

The cost of accreditation for a physiotherapist with a practice certificate in this country is somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000. In Australia it is $500. In this country it takes 18 months to become accredited. In Australia it takes only a couple of weeks. Is it any wonder that some senior physiotherapists in this country are closing their doors? Is it any wonder that if some have not already closed their doors already they are considering such action. It is my understanding that the ACC fraud squad consists of several former South African police officers. It is not an interview that they subject physios to; it is an interrogation. It is in-the-face interrogation. It is a deliberate tactic by the Accident Compensation Corporation, with the Minister’s knowledge, to bring physios into line.

Today in the House I asked a question of the Minister for ACC in relation to her answer to a written question, but as she was not here the Minister of Finance answered it. He had to state that it was only half right, and the half he said was correct, was wrong. He was right when he said that the half that was wrong was wrong. In other words, the answer to the question was absolute garbage. I am prepared to say that it was actually a pack of lies. Whoever compiled that answer knew what he or she was putting down on the piece of paper. I tell Government members that that is not good enough.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member may have accidentally—in confusing an official and a Minister who was responsible—suggested that a Minister had lied to the House by way of a written answer. I am sure what he meant to say was that the Minister was misinformed. He would not have said what he did if he had thought about it carefully.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sure that that is what the member intended to say. Thank you for raising that.

I think he does have to withdraw and apologise for what he said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, because it did come out the other way.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually said something along the lines that the advice received by the Minister was flawed, but I concluded that it could well be a pack of lies. That is the conclusion I made. But I accept that, because I want that Government to do something positive about that issue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member’s time is up. We have resolved that issue.

Kia ora, talofa, and warm Pacific greetings. As the Labour MP for Mana I stand with dignity and pride to participate in a debate about remembering the 1990s and celebrating the present and the future under Labour.

This debate shows that Dr Brash and National are suffering from short-term memory loss. They forget that National was tossed out in 1999 by the people of New Zealand. They forget how bad things were during the 1990s. We need to remind New Zealanders of what happened under the last National Administration and what Labour has done to turn the tide.

Labour has clear policies. We are implementing them, and we are doing more. We have kept our word. This Labour-led Government has spent the last 5 years reversing the trends of the previous decade, which was a decade of despair. A deep loss of hope and powerlessness were felt by many New Zealanders during that time. We have turned around unemployment to a 20-year low. Do we want to go back to the 1990s, when Māori unemployment was 18 to 19 percent? It is now only 9 percent. Pacific Island unemployment was 15 to 16 percent. It is now only 6 percent. Labour has turned those bad statistics right round. In the area of unemployment, remember the 1990s!

In terms of defence, our Defence Force was seriously run down in the 1990s, and Simon Power publicly attested to that. Our Government has recently announced additional funding of $4.6 billion over the next 10 years to restore and develop our Defence Force. Our Government is committed to a modern Defence Force, with a motorised and readily deployable Army, an enhanced Navy, and an updated Air Force. The additional funding announced this week is the biggest funding initiative for defence in a generation. Our Government is extremely proud of the New Zealand Defence Force. Our military personnel are deployed around the world at the highest operational level in a generation. The outstanding work of the recent deployment to assist in the tsunami-devastated Aceh is a recent example of that. Our New Zealand Defence Force already has an excellent international reputation. Remember the 1990s!

With our family policies we have also turned round the situation for families. From April this year about 55 percent of New Zealand families have been entitled to more money through the Working for Families package. Those changes will—and have already—put more money in the pockets of low to middle income families, through increased support for living costs, housing, and childcare. Family support has increased by $25 a week for the first child, and $15 a week for each additional child. From October there will be a 10 percent increase in child subsidy rates, on top of last year’s initial 10 percent rise. That means working families will be eligible for up to $156 per week per child in childcare assistance. In addition to those changes childcare assistance is now available to families also on higher incomes. Remember the Budget cuts of the 1990s!

We are also supporting vulnerable families. Family Start is providing assistance to families with children aged up to 5 years, where their circumstances place them very much at risk. It is an effective early-intervention programme that helps children and their families achieve their potential later in life and greatly reduces the chances of abuse. Last year more than 4,000 vulnerable families with pre-school children were helped by that service. We are currently investing over $18 million in Family Start, and that will increase to an annual investment of nearly $29 million.

In business growth, the tax changes that have been announced pre-Budget will also help small and medium businesses. The focus of tax changes in this year’s Budget will be on facilitating savings, increasing New Zealand’s access to worldwide labour skills and capital and ensuring their effective use, so as to increase productivity and grow the economy. There will also be more money—$2.7 million—for business start-ups and the business incubator sector, to help our companies grow, innovate, and develop a cutting edge.

With “Doonegate” we have a question about the honesty and integrity of Prime Minister Helen Clark. It goes like this. A journalist hears from a source that Mr Peter Doone interfered with a young officer going about his duty, and that when the young officer went to breath test the driver of the car, Mr Doone told him that that would not be necessary. The reporter rang Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Members may be surprised as to why he did that, but he rang her because she was leaking like a drain on Peter Doone. She was in a position to know what had happened, because she had Rob Robinson’s report. The Prime Minister of New Zealand assured the reporter that if he wrote that, he would not be wrong.

Of course the reporter, being a good reporter, had his tape recorder going. The reporter rang the Prime Minister a second time to confirm the story, and Helen Clark did. It is not correct to say that she said it was contested—she confirmed it. Indeed, the editor then rang to confirm it with the Prime Minister, which she did.

Of course, what the Sunday Star-Times printed on 16 January 2000 was untrue, and if it were untrue, it was highly defamatory. The Sunday Star-Times did not publish the story until it took it to its lawyer. The lawyer OK’d it, having listened to the tapes and seen the transcripts of what the Prime Minister said. Everyone in this House knows that if the Prime Minister had said: “Actually, that’s contested.”, the paper never would have run the story, because it would not have been safe.

On the Sunday of publication Mr Peter Doone said that the story was wrong and that he was going to sue the Sunday Star-Times. That was well reported at the time. So both the reporter and the editor rang Helen Clark, who was going through the process of deciding whether Mr Peter Doone should be disciplined or sacked. She confirmed for them that what they had written was correct. She told them she had the report in front of her, and to hang tough. That is what the Prime Minister of New Zealand said.

What did the paper do? On 23 January it editorialised that Peter Doone should go, and repeated the defamation. How could it be so confident? Well, it had every reason to believe that what it was saying was true, because the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who had the Rob Robinson report, had said it was.

On 25 January Mr Peter Doone resigned his post. The Rob Robinson report was released, and, holy moly, what Helen Clark had said was in the report was not. Peter Doone then spent 5 years and a lot of money pursuing the Sunday Star-Times.

A couple of weeks ago Mr Doone discovered that the person who had confirmed the story, and who, in fact, had encouraged the paper to run it, was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. [Interruption] At that point he knew he was suing the wrong party. I want Trevor Mallard to think about this—why would Peter Doone suddenly stop suing the Sunday Star-Times and start suing the Prime Minister? Mr Doone realised that the Sunday Star-Times had the perfect defence, because Prime Minister Helen Clark had assured it that what it had written was true. On that basis, after the Lange decision, Mr Doone’s suit would not stand up against the Sunday Star-Times.

The Sunday Star-Times and Fairfax say that Helen Clark confirmed the story. That is what they have told the court. Helen Clark has told this House that she did not confirm it. So someone is telling an untruth. It could be Fairfax, telling the court that Helen Clark confirmed the story when she did not. But she has put in a brief of evidence supporting its contention. Helen Clark has not contested what Fairfax told the court, but she has come to Parliament and said the complete opposite. I think that Helen Clark is lying over this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have heard because you were calling my colleague Lynne Pillay, but right at the tail end of Mr Hide’s contribution he made a most unparliamentary remark. I think he should be made to withdraw and apologise for that comment. He knows exactly what he said.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said that I think Helen Clark is lying over this. That is what I think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member please withdraw and apologise. I would appreciate that.

To please the Speaker, I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is not to please me. If the member could just leave off that comment.

I withdraw and apologise.

Was not that typical of the ACT party? ACT is now polling less than half of the margin of error. How low can one go? Well, one can go pretty low if one is a member of the ACT party, but one can go very, very low when one is Rodney Hide. I am not here to talk about negative stuff. I am here to talk about positive stuff today, because that is what this Government is about. Let us look at our industrial relations now. Over the last 6 years we have had six increases to the minimum wage. We now have improved health and safety, we have fairer labour laws, we have 4 weeks’ holiday on promise for all New Zealand workers, and we have paid parental leave.

What would Dr Brash do? He was going to scrap the Employment Relations Act. He was definitely going to scrap 4 weeks’ holiday. Now, who knows? Who knows what Dr Brash is going to do now? What do we know? We know that Dr Brash and the National Party think that workers should have no rights—nothing like a minimum wage. Who needs that in New Zealand? Dr Brash was opposed to the—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is becoming a habit but I am sure you did not hear the interjection from Gerry Brownlee, which was grossly unparliamentary and out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): In fact I did hear it, and I was about to do something about it. The member should withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr Brash is opposed to the minimum wage. He does not like fair holidays for this country, and he does not like safe workplaces. That is not what National is about.

Let us look at industry training and apprenticeships. There are more opportunities for young people, and more skills for business in New Zealand. That did not happen in the 1990s, but it is happening now. Again, National members grizzle and whine but offer no alternative. National is the party that absolutely wallows in negativity. We can see those members wallowing now. Let us look at Gerry Brownlee wallowing. According to National members and their mates—whoops, their former mates; the “Hover Around 2 Percent Party”—there is nothing good in this country. What happens in the National Party if one of its members excels in negativity and dumping on people? That member gets promoted. I say congratulations to Judith Collins—she is a star. What happens finally? If a National member finds all the negativity is just too much, he or she is gone by lunchtime. This Government stands by its record for women and for families. Paid parental leave will be for 14 weeks and will cover all women, including self-employed women, by 2006. Is that not great? No, say Opposition members. New Zealand families think it is great. New Zealand women, including self-employed women, think it is great.

Dr Brash now wants to cut public spending. Minor changes on the margins simply will not do the trick, so what will go? Will it be the 2,700 extra teachers we have employed? Will it be the 3,300 extra nurses we have employed? Will it be the 950 extra medical staff we have employed? Will it be the 1,250 extra non-clinical support staff we have employed? Will it be the 398 extra social workers, the 138 extra probation officers, the 820 extra prison officers, or the 1,080 extra police we have employed? I can see Gerry Brownlee over there on the Opposition benches, looking really miserable.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop telling lies.

That is the truth. I have never seen anybody look as miserable as that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I can intervene; I do not need the point of order. Please do not make that reference in the House. I know the vein in which it was being used, but I ask the member to please withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For goodness’ sake! Nobody could know better than me whether I am feeling miserable. If I am asserting that I am not miserable, and the member is asserting that I am, where does that leave the member? It is a bit like Helen Clark over the Peter Doone issue, when we start to think about it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That was an unnecessary reflection on Mr Brownlee, but let us move on.

I am sorry, but if that is someone who is looking happy I would hate to see—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctantly in the House, because I was going to take a point of order before, as you are aware, but you ruled it out of order. There has been a repeat of a very similar assertion from that man down there—Mr Hide, I think his name is.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

All I can say is that if Mr Brownlee is looking happy, I would hate to see him looking miserable.

Moving on, I want to talk in closing about a great event.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that if the member who has just sat down sought an extra 2 minutes to tell us about the greatest event in her life, the House would grant leave for that in a heartbeat.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is the member seeking leave for that?

💬 Rodney Hide: She has to do it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The time for this debate had ended.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.