General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday a letter was received in the Prime Minister’s office, which started an alert. The letter stated that foot-and-mouth disease had been released on Waiheke Island and that a further release would be made if certain things were not done.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials, the police, and the Government believe that this letter is a hoax, and I stress that there is no evidence that the virus has, indeed, been spread. However, it is a threat we must take seriously. We are a nation reliant on primary industry. The exports vulnerable to foot-and-mouth disease earn half our total export income. No responsible Government could just ignore a threat such as the one received yesterday.

Two operations were immediately launched. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry began a biosecurity response, and the police are tracking the author of the letter. As of 5 p.m. yesterday, a controlled-area notice for Waiheke Island became effective. There are currently six veterinarians, two specialist exotic disease investigators, and three media liaison staff working on the island. Checkpoints have been established at the two main ferry terminals on the island, and nine police officers are present to support ministry staff. Efforts are focusing on the 12 largest properties, as those hold the greatest numbers of stock and pose the greatest risk of spread. The Department of Conservation has closed the Stony Batter Historic Reserve to minimise foot traffic through the Man o’War Station.

Last night Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials were able to contact 18 of the 39 farmers on Waiheke Island. Ministry vets today are making appointments with Waiheke Island farmers to observe livestock for possible signs of foot-and-mouth disease. All stock will be checked every 48 hours for 14 days—the longest possible incubation period for foot-and-mouth disease before clinical symptoms appear. A public meeting to discuss the situation is planned on the island tonight, and details of the time and venue are no doubt being advised by the media. I understand that both major TV channels will be present and broadcasting live from the meeting.

Overnight, over 50 trading partner nations, including major member countries of the European Union, were informed of the situation. Most have expressed appreciation at the early advice, confidence in New Zealand’s management of the situation, and a desire to be kept informed. Our major trading partners, the United States, Canada, and the European Union, have offered assistance. The World Organization for Animal Health, the OIE, has also been informed, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is working with the farming industry to address its natural concerns.

I note that the leader of the National Party thinks we should have held off doing anything. He told Television New Zealand, and I quote—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop telling lies. We won’t have that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member on my left is a long-serving member. He knows what he has just done is out of order. I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the member who is speaking is an even longer serving member. He should know that misquoting a document that has been placed on the Table of the House constitutes a lie to the House, and he should desist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is compounding the situation. The member knows that that is a debatable point, and I am sure that he will be taking a call in this debate.

I will quote directly from the words of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a direct quote from an unaired TV report, which was referred to, so we did the elderly gentleman the courtesy of getting the verbatim account of what he said. TV New Zealand asked: “How do you think the Government has handled the issue?” Brash: “Er, I am surprised they made a public statement about it all, to be frank. If it’s only a hoax, they have done a lot of damage to our reputation. I would have thought they would have tried harder to find out if there was any truth in the allegations at all.” That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. He advocated that we tried to keep secret this alleged outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

What a disgraceful use of Parliament’s time that was by the Minister, Jim Sutton.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order that was raised before, in which the member called me a liar, and to which I did not respond directly because I did not wish to dignify it or waste my own speaking time, I maintain was deliberately put up to disrupt my speech and to shorten the time available to me, and I want an assurance that any time that was taken was not deducted from my speaking time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No time was deducted from the Minister’s speaking time.

I would ask the same courtesy, since my time appears to have been disrupted, as well. That was a disgraceful use of parliamentary time by the bumbling Minister of Agriculture. If this issue were of such importance to Government members, why did they not come into the House today with a ministerial statement? Why were they not prepared to make a statement to the nation that all political parties could respond to? Because if it is a true release of foot-and-mouth disease, it is a national crisis, and no party in this country can afford to walk away from the consequences of that.

Mr Sutton had a go at Dr Brash for his comments that suggested New Zealand might have been cost a lot of money if the release did prove to be just a hoax, so I want him and Marian Hobbs to stand up and tell the House how many hoax foot-and-mouth release allegations there were in New Zealand last year. I know there were several. Dr Cullen knows there were several, and the Government did not react like this on those occasions. For Dr Brash simply to say: “Let’s show a bit of caution when we’re dealing with such a huge chunk of our national economy.”, is quite reasonable.

But it comes as no surprise to me that Mr Sutton rose to put his particular twist on things, in the way he did today. From the top to the bottom, that is the style of the Labour Government. The unanswered question in this Parliament right now is: “Did Helen Clark tell a lie to the Sunday Star-Times?”. That is the question that remains unanswered. Nearly 35 questions have been asked in the House on this issue in the last couple of days, and we still do not know whether Helen Clark told a lie to the Sunday Star-Times. One might think that the Prime Minister would come into this House and say, in answer to one of those questions: “No, I didn’t.” But the Prime Minister has not done that. Instead, we have heard: “I don’t remember. I can’t recollect. I’m sure I would have. I think I did. I think I didn’t. I don’t see why I would have.”, etc.

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The deputy leader of the National Party has continually repeated the word “lie” this afternoon. He has done it twice in the last 30 seconds. I think he should be asked to stop, and be told he cannot apply that word to another member of Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): To imply that anyone is lying is an insinuation against the integrity of the House.

I will say again: the great unanswered question in the New Zealand Parliament at the moment is: “Did the Prime Minister tell a lie to the Sunday Star-Times?”. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent anyone from asking that question. Day after day in question time that is the question being asked, and day after day in question time that is the question the Prime Minister has failed to answer.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is absolutely no question that the member on his feet has accused another honourable member of lying. I find that completely offensive and I think he should be disciplined.

💬 Rodney Hide: If the Hon Jim Sutton had listened carefully, he would have realised that the deputy leader of the National Party was not accusing the Prime Minister of lying, at all. He was saying that that is the question being asked. He was pointing out that the Prime Minister will not come to the Chamber and make a denial. To ask the question is not to make that assertion.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: That is simply playing with words. There was absolutely no doubt at all about the impression the member on his feet was seeking to convey to members of the public.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members that under Speaker’s ruling 39/4 the word “lie” is out of order. Many other expressions can be used.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to be clear—the situation is that we can accuse the staff of the Sunday Star-Times of lying in their statement of evidence, but we cannot accuse the Prime Minister of lying to them. Is that the ruling?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that it is out of order to indicate that a member deliberately misled the House. That is not in order. I ask members to come to order and let us continue with the debate.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do apologise, but this is an important point. It is quite clear that under the Standing Orders we can accuse the Sunday Star-Times reporters and journalists of lying. It is also quite clear, and you have just said, that it is wrong to accuse a member of deliberately misleading the House. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled the House; I do believe that she lied to the Sunday Star-Times reporters—and we are putting a question about that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The situation we find ourselves in is that an inference has been drawn from what has been said. Giving that implication as a member, of course, is an offence against both the dignity of the House and the assumption that all its members behave truthfully and honourably. That is not the case in this particular instance. The reality is that the word “liar” has been ruled out of order on many occasions by many former Speakers. It is not acceptable, because all members of this House are honourable members, and their word is their bond. Any other thoughts on the matter can be raised with the Privileges Committee.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue cannot be raised with the Privileges Committee, because the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Sunday Star-Times reporters outside the House. [Interruption] Mr Phillip Field might want to interrupt but I suggest to him that he do the proper thing. When I have sat down and he has something to contribute—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Hide, can we please have the point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: It is all very well for the member on my left to be chipping in—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to deal with that.

💬 Rodney Hide: The point is that a breach of privilege cannot be taken against the Prime Minister for what she said to the Sunday Star-Times, as you suggested.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If members are implying that other members are misleading the House, that is a different matter. Can I just say to the honourable member on my right that there are to be no interjections, at all, during the taking of points of order. It is disorderly and it is not acceptable in this House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out to you that Speaker’s ruling 39/4 upholds the right of a member to imply that someone has been incorrect in something he or she has said. I will quote it: “A particular mode of expression that has been ruled out of order consistently has been the use of the word ‘lie.’ ” I accept that. However, I am sure it means in the context of saying “you are telling a lie”, which is not what I did. It states further: “Many other expressions can be used to say that a member is stating something that is incorrect—”. I have not said that the Prime Minister said anything incorrect. I have said that there is a question out there relating to something she may or may not have done. Further, it states that “that is material for debate, which goes on in the Chamber every sitting day.” Given that ruling, I think the sensitivity being expressed by the Labour Party is puzzling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very important point. When we read Speaker’s ruling 39/4, we see that it is very clear it refers to Parliament. What happened with respect to the Prime Minister was outside Parliament. She has not taken the opportunity to come to the House to make a personal explanation. It seems to me that we are quite entitled to question what she said outside Parliament, because that is not impugning her mode of speech in the Chamber. Rather, it concerns what she has been saying to the media. Speaker’s ruling 39/4 explicitly refers to what is going on in Parliament, but the issue is not about what she said in Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank members again. I have already said that the use of the word “lie” is out of order. “Lie” is a mode of expression that has been ruled out of order on many occasions. Its use leads to disorder. There are many other ways of making the point that a member believes something to be incorrect, and I ask members to adhere to the ruling.

The question remains, then: why was the Prime Minister so hopelessly reckless with the truth when she was dealing with the Sunday Star-Times? I do not understand why the Labour Party members over there are so sensitive. I do not understand why they are nodding their heads, shaking their heads, wagging their fingers, etc. All the Prime Minister has to do is come to the House and make a personal explanation, or come to the House and table the transcripts we know she has, table the reporters’ notes we know she has, and save us the bother of having to publish the tapes so that all New Zealanders can hear exactly what she was up to. If it takes us days, weeks, or months to drag some degree of responsibility for this issue out of the Prime Minister, then so be it. All the head-waving and finger-wagging from Marian Hobbs, from the member for Auckland Central, or from a few others over there—outgoing members, I might say; members whose time in this House is relatively short—then so be it. We will just carry on anyway.

The question here is: “Should this country be led by someone who is prepared to go out and besmirch the reputations of anybody who gets in their road?”. The list is very long. It started with Kit Richards and moved on to Peter Doone. Numerous other civil servants have gone down the road. Believe it or not, seven Ministers have gone down the road for less careless behaviour than the Prime Minister seems to have exhibited on this particular issue. The question is whether that is the sort of leader one wants running the country. When a big issue is on, do we want someone who might be prepared to fudge the realities of truth in order to meet his or her own ends? That is what is being asked here.

The question is whether this country should be led by somebody who takes our farming and our biosecurity seriously, and I do not think the jury is even out on that. At the moment our country is being served by a Prime Minister who does take biosecurity seriously, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition who has displayed in the last 24 hours that he obviously does not realise the seriousness of the situation that is affecting our country at the moment.

About 4 weeks ago we undertook—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you are going to be hard about the ruling that a member cannot deliberately say that someone has lied, or led people in the wrong direction, or other such points, then you need to listen very carefully to what Marian Hobbs is saying. The question she should answer is whether there were five alleged outbreaks of foot-and-mouth in New Zealand last year that she and her Government did not go public on.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. Frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a speech are out of order. Such tactics lead to disorder and are unacceptable to the progress of business through the House.

Just 4 weeks ago we took part in the second round of Exercise Taurus. Exercise Taurus was a simulation of either a hoax or a real outbreak of foot-and-mouth. We went through the whole business of how transparent New Zealand is to other markets out there, how we communicate with the people in the affected area such as on Waiheke Island, and how we talk about and set up all the situations. We take hoaxes or reality equally seriously, because they have impacts on the exchange. The preparedness of transparency is important. If we cry wolf and say that something is not happening, or we keep it secret, then we begin to plant a doubt in the minds of people overseas. It was said so clearly by Annabel Young from Federated Farmers, when she talked about Chernobyl. When people try to hide something, people in the markets begin to doubt when the truth is actually being spoken.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Five times last year.

The Opposition member raises a point about situations that have arisen in previous years. I experienced one of those situations, concerning an incident in Te Kūiti. A cow had eaten some parsnips. The parsnips produced lesions around its mouth. That is a sign of possible foot-and-mouth. At that stage the entire works were closed. We went straight into the process of letting our overseas posts know, and other Governments know. Within an hour of those works being closed, people were on the phone and on talkback, telling those stories. That is why we take hoaxes, threats, or mistaken diagnoses seriously. That is why people are informed. It is to build trust. I find it absolutely amazing that we have a person who purports to want to lead this country—a country whose money is based on trust and trade—who does not understand that, and says, to quote the words used by the previous speaker for the Opposition: “Let’s show a bit of caution …”.

Let us take this question of caution, because that is what the British did. The British did not put into place straightaway a restriction on movements. The result was that in a country and on an island where people move stock between farms far more often than we do in New Zealand, they managed to spread the disease before they began to place restrictions on movement so seriously.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: You’re missing the point.

I am not missing the point at all. The point is that we are out there, and as soon as something like this is established, we move extremely fast. If I am so missing the point I would like to quote Annabel Young from Federated Farmers: “This claimed threat is seen as a likely hoax, but should nevertheless be taken very seriously by the Government. We are pleased that it has activated its disease management response system, that it has stopped cattle coming off Waiheke Island. We are also very pleased that the Government has taken the decision to announce this probable hoax as soon as possible. Federated Farmers will be offering its support to the Government to handle this threat.”

I am not playing games. I am absolutely dismayed at this situation. [Interruption] The reason I am not playing this in a party political fashion is that in this situation a statement was made by the appropriate Minister—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. Would the Minister be seated. Mr Brownlee has implied that a member lacked courage. That is totally out of order and against the conventions of the House. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What did I say? I missed that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member said that the Minister lacks guts.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, I did not.

The point was that an official statement was made at 4 o’clock yesterday, as we went into consideration of this situation. It was not about politics. It was about the protection of the trading reputation and the scientific reputation of our country. It is particularly important that we follow the agreed procedures that we have set down in biosecurity processes all our lives.

The question is this: can we trust Helen Clark? That is the problem that members here—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies to Mr Hide. I do not like to interrupt his speeches. They are always very good, and the House certainly needs to wake up after that last speech. But the senior Government whip has just indicated that we have just had two speeches from Ministers in a ministerial statement situation. If that is the case, let us break the House now and go into a full ministerial statement debate on this issue, as should have occurred at 2 o’clock today given the importance of the issue. I seek leave for that to happen.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave for that to happen. It is members’ day, so the member is entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

💬 Jill Pettis: I was interrupted. What is the member saying?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is seeking leave to have a debate. He is seeking leave for a ministerial statement. There is objection.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do not misrepresent me. Do not get me wrong. I asked for leave for there to be a full debate on the issue. I can see that the Government does not want the general debate interrupted, and that is fair enough. We know that it is members’ day. We know that there is now very little on the Order Paper, because of the House giving leave in respect of the New Zealand First bill going ahead. We know that the House is supposed to sit until 10 o’clock tonight, but in fact there is only enough business on the Order Paper to see us through until about 9. So there is a bit of room. I am suggesting, and I am seeking leave, for the House, at the conclusion of the general debate, to have a full 1-hour debate on the matter of the alleged foot-and-mouth outbreak on Waiheke Island.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [Interruption] I am on my feet. I just ask members to take a big, deep breath and breathe through their noses. Let us have some order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be appropriate for the clock to be reset, because I was just a few seconds into my speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. It has not even started yet.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The whole problem with this foot-and-mouth outbreak, apart from the hoax and the fear, is that we cannot actually trust Helen Clark. Until recently I had disagreed with her policies and her politics, but I had always believed that we could trust Helen Clark. I believed that when she said something was going to happen, it would happen, or if she said something was true, then it was true. But here is a question for the House: could Mr Peter Doone trust Helen Clark to follow due process and deal with him in an appropriate way? He found out that he could not. That is what we have found out in the last 2 weeks. We have found out that the top police officer in New Zealand could not trust Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Let us be clear about what she did. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, while considering whether to sack the top cop in New Zealand, spoke to the Sunday Star-Times and confirmed for it, not once, not twice, but five times, a false and damning story against Peter Doone. The Sunday Star-Times said to Helen Clark: “Are you sure you’re right? Because this will cost us a lot of money if it’s wrong.”, and Helen Clark said: “It’s correct. I’ve got the reports in front of me.” The following week she reconfirmed it twice. She told the editor: “You will be vindicated when I release the papers.”

💬 Jill Pettis: You’re just making it up.

Oh, that is great! Jill Pettis calls out that I am just making it up. Sue Chetwin, then editor of the Sunday Star-Times lied in her statement of evidence—that is what the Labour Party is now saying. Labour is saying that the former editor of the Sunday Star-Times swore a statement of evidence that is a lie.

💬 Jill Pettis: No, the member is making it up.

Oh, it is just hopeless with Jill Pettis, is it not, to hear what happened. That is what Helen Clark did. Then we found out in the following week that Helen Clark picked up the reports and read from them. Secret Cabinet reports were read to a journalist, and here is the thing about the Prime Minister of New Zealand: she was not prepared for the public, her MPs, or her Ministers to know that that was what she was doing, so she struck a deal with the Sunday Star-Times. She said: “I will give you the information. I will read for you the reports, because this is my plan to get rid of Peter Doone,”—that is what she told them—“on the basis that you say that I’ve got no comment, because that wouldn’t be appropriate.” That is what Helen Clark did. She leaked the reports from Cabinet. Of course, that is totally against the Cabinet Manual, which in paragraph 3.19 states that confidentiality is required. So we asked the Prime Minister about this yesterday, and again today, and what did she say?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: “I can’t leak.”

She said: “I can’t leak. By definition I can’t leak.” How does that work? Well, it works like this. The Cabinet Manual is supposed to bind all Ministers, is it not, I ask Mr Donnelly. All Ministers are supposed to agree, but the person who enforces those rules is the Prime Minister, and she says: “If I’m not prepared to enforce the rule against myself, then, by definition, I can’t leak.”

Well, we have heard that before. Richard Nixon approved, way back, the Huston Plan. The Huston Plan involved Nixon going after his political enemies. Does that sound familiar? It involved wire-tapping, burglary, mail-opening, and other black operations. Mr Huston explained to President Nixon that it was illegal, and Richard Nixon approved it anyway. Then, on 19 May 1977, a famous interview took place between President Nixon and David Frost, and Trickie Dickie said this: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” David Frost was struggling with this concept, and he asked: “Do you mean, by definition?”, and President Richard Nixon said: “Exactly.” And that is what Helen Clark has said in this House—that the rules do not apply to her, the law does not apply to her, and she can do as she pleases, by definition. And she lied to the Sunday Star-Times.

I want to bring the whole matter of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exam programme to the attention of the House. We in United Future have always held a constructive view on the promulgation and the beginning of NCEA. Many of the Opposition parties and politicians, myself included, have publicised the problems, but the solutions have been very slow to emerge, and we are all conscious of that. I want to address that today.

We in United Future have a track record of seeking to improve the NCEA programmes. On arrival in this House in late 2002, I sought a select committee inquiry into the implementation of the NCEA system, thinking, rightly at that stage, that that would probably put the matter back on track. But in reality it did not, and we are here today hearing about it again. In the near future we will hear much more about how the system has not got on track but has, in fact, lost track in certain areas. United Future is still asking for improvements to take place. While we await reports—and we all know that official reports are due on this—I thought I might take the opportunity today to note one or two recommendations that United Future has with regard to this issue.

Our No. 1 recommendation is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority engage in a very productive public education campaign to ensure that parents, students, and employers can actually understand the NCEA programme. When listening to the radio—last Monday, I think it was—I heard a discussion taking place on a talkback show. Some others may have heard it. In reality it was a phone-in from a girl who was looking for a job, and she was about to go into an interview with a prospective employer. She was asked by the radio host: “While you’re there, why don’t you ask the employer whether he understands anything about your NCEA results?” She did ring back, and she said that the employer never asked for her script, the reason being that he—I am assuming it was a “he”—could not, and would not know how to, read or understand the whole thing.

So the first thing we would recommend—as well as ensuring we took notice of what the official report said—is that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority ensure that a public education campaign is carried out to ensure that parents and employers know all about the NCEA. Students seem to know something about it, but we would like the employers to know something about it. Why would we want to make that a No. 1 recommendation? Simply because we think the programme has failed to get across the basic concept of what it stands for.

Our second recommendation is that we return the New Zealand education system, in the last year prior to university, to a scholarship exam system along the lines of the previous format. The standards-based assessment programme that NCEA is based on does not allow top students to be identified in the easiest and clearest of manners. It certainly focuses on individual achievement, but it does not do the next step, which precedes, certainly, higher learning in a university. So we think very strongly that a return to a scholarship exam, which is norm-referenced and therefore can be ranked so that best students can be assessed correctly, is a good recommendation and a step forward for the future of New Zealand.

Right now there are students who are not clear at all about what to aim for and where to go. Employers are at sixes and sevens and, sadly, parents have no idea of what is going on. They are asking for, and require, a more certain programme. We believe that this recommendation would bring certainty back to the system.

We also believe there should be a good basis on which to legitimise other forms and types of examinations in this nation, and our third recommendation is that we do so.

I note that the Minister, Mr Jim Sutton, is still in the House, so I also intend to devote my comments to the foot-and-mouth disease scare that is on at the moment. I say at the outset that a biosecurity scare such as foot-and-mouth disease is the most perilous thing that could face this economy. I have long argued that in an instance like this the most important thing for politicians to do is to leave the politics out of the situation and to concentrate on the issue. Yet today Jim Sutton, Marian Hobbs, and Phil Goff have taken cheap shots and tried to bring politics into the issue. As the farmers around New Zealand face the threat of foot-and-mouth, the last thing they want is to see the Minister of Agriculture, who is also the Minister for Biosecurity, attempting to play cheap political shots. It lowers the Minister incredibly.

I have given him every warning. He has fired the first shot, and I will not hesitate from now on to make sure that we keep the issue open and make sure he performs substantially better than he did on Breakfast this morning. I have had dozens of calls and emails to my office today following Jim Sutton’s performance on Breakfast. I will quote just one, from a man who copied his email to Mr Sutton and said to him: “you are an idiot: a stumbling, bumbling fool.

“I suggest that you contact the Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity to request that she appoint a more intelligent Minister to front this issue. Your clear lack of intellect threatens to do more harm to New Zealand farming than any foot and mouth outbreak ever could.”

That is the confidence in which a New Zealand farmer holds Jim Sutton, and it is typical of the comments we have received all day following the Minister’s performance. It is little wonder, because the farmers of New Zealand face a very significant scare today, and Jim Sutton has come into the House and attempted to play cheap, dirty politics by quoting one sentence from a significant interview that Don Brash gave yesterday and taking it completely out of context.

Jim Sutton knows that Don Brash did say that he was surprised at the reaction when the scare looked like a hoax, but that he went on to say he completely supported the Government’s action. Jim Sutton knows that, yet he has taken the opportunity to play politics with biosecurity. It lowers my estimation of that Minister completely. But he will not be in office long, because the foot-and-mouth issue has only temporarily taken the focus off the duplicity of the Prime Minister. She made some comments to the Sunday Star-Times and now will not front up to the House and repeat them.

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know the point I will make. Today the Opposition has ceaselessly accused people, calling them liars, saying they lied, asking if someone lied, and mentioning duplicity. This is not a direction this debate should be allowed to take.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I heard what Mr David Carter said and I was considering it under personal reflections. I ask the member to withdraw that statement. I saw it as a personal reflection.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I referred to the duplicity of the Prime Minister. You are not suggesting that I have to withdraw that, I hope.

💬 Rodney Hide: I am reading through the list of unparliamentary language. It is quite a long list, but it does not include “duplicity”. Are you suggesting, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you will rule that one cannot accuse someone in this House of being duplicitous?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The concern was that it was seen by members on the Government side of the House as a personal reflection. They have drawn it to my attention. Given that it was seen as a personal reflection, I have asked the member to withdraw.

Mr Speaker, now that the Minister of Agriculture has satisfactorily interrupted my speech, I wonder if you could tell me how much time I have left.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has 1 minute and 20 seconds remaining.

💬 Government Member: He hasn’t withdrawn.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member withdraw.

I withdraw. Time and time again over the last few days the Prime Minister has been asked about what she said to Oskar Alley and what she said to the Sunday Star-Times. She is not prepared to come into the House and level with the public of New Zealand about what she said. That is why there is so much heat and doubt about this issue. She could clear it up tomorrow by coming into the House and answering the questions. There will be a lot of questions on the Order Paper tomorrow, because New Zealanders want to know the answer. At the moment we are not getting—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: They don’t.

Judith Tizard is right. Labour does not want us to know the answer, because it knows there is something at risk. One cannot read little snippets of information from a confidential Cabinet paper to a Sunday Star-Times reporter and then say that one has done so on the condition that one is reported in the article as saying “no comment”. The Prime Minister has a history of setting out to get rid of people, like Peter Doone and Kit Richards, whom she does not like. New Zealanders are now aware of her habits, and they have had enough of them.

As the member of Parliament for Auckland Central, I am delighted to take a call in the general debate to talk about what is really the issue today. It is the fact that the Government has responded thoroughly and well to an appalling attack on our integrity and our economy. This Government has taken very seriously the appalling suggestion, which we believe is a hoax, that there has been a deliberate release of foot-and-mouth on Waiheke Island.

I assure the House and New Zealand that Waiheke people take this threat very, very seriously. I compliment the Waiheke Community Board chairman, Ray Ericson, and the deputy chair, Kelly-Ann Harvey, for the work they have done today with the Auckland City Council and the people of Waiheke to make sure that good information is out, and that people on Waiheke are absolutely clear about what the concern is. We will not know definitely until the person who has written this letter either comes forward or is discovered, or until the tests come back clear—we all hope and pray—on Friday or Saturday.

People on Waiheke Island do take biosecurity very, very seriously. They already welcome the fact that their area is permanently controlled for possums—and there are no possums on Waiheke Island. There are significant farms on Waiheke Island. People on the island will cooperate with the Government, with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and with biosecurity officials on this matter.

I am appalled to hear the Leader of the Opposition accuse the Prime Minister’s statement of scaremongering. It was not scaremongering. We are really clear that there are about 20 foot-and-mouth calls per year. People call about suspect symptoms in stock, and we check it out. I am really glad that everyone in New Zealand knows that a foot-and-mouth outbreak would be a risk to the $15 billion to $20 billion export industry, and I agree that every responsible New Zealander, not just farmers, has to be on the lookout. I agree with the head of Meat and Wool New Zealand, Jeff Grant, who says that he does not believe that the virus has been released, but that the Government has been prudent in activating the disease management response.

I agree with Annabel Young that Don Brash is an absolute disgrace to New Zealand when he says that this is scaremongering. Well, it is scaremongering, and as the MP for Auckland Central, I am really proud to say that the people of Waiheke will take the matter seriously and do take it seriously, just as this Government does. Wild pigs are the big problem in the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, and there are not that many pigs are on Waiheke. We do not want this disease to be spread in New Zealand. This Government has been responsible not only by warning our trading partners but by warning the people of Waiheke and New Zealand.

This situation shows the appalling lack of leadership in the National Party. The once-great party that said it was the party of farmers has stooped to making political scaremongering accusations, which is political scaremongering itself. If Don Brash cannot be the leader of the National Party, he should stand aside, as so many of his back-benchers and, actually, so many of his front-benchers—let alone so many of his former colleagues—are now saying. I want to say how seriously I take this situation, and how seriously the people of Auckland City and the Auckland region take it. I believe that the people of Waiheke will do us proud, because they take the economy and the environment of this country very, very seriously. I just wish that other members of this House—election year or no—took this as seriously as the Government does.

I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Biosecurity on the extensive programmes that they have put in place over the last 6 years, so that, for the first time, this country is properly funded and is properly served by its staff, who understand that this risk is not one that we can ever take lightly. Previous Governments have; we are taking it seriously. I believe that the exercises that were run in the past will stand us proud. I congratulate Waiheke and this Government.

If Labour took biosecurity seriously, then it would have kept its 1999 promise to decontaminate every second-hand car brought into New Zealand from offshore—not like what is happening now, with half of them sitting in the Auckland port for up to 3 weeks without any treatment at all.

Before I refer to what is coming up tonight after the break, at about 8.30, which is the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, I want to refer to the behaviour of one of my colleagues in this House—namely, Rodney Hide. I was meant to be at another meeting tonight, and I asked for the courtesy, due to the urgent debate today and also to the matter of the Privileges Committee that is coming up tonight, of that bill being deferred to the next appropriate sitting day. Rodney Hide, of course, declined that leave. He is the leader of a political party who wrote, in respect of one Jim Peron, a paedophile, that nothing “in the voluminous writings” of Mr Peron indicated positions that would make him unworthy of working and living in New Zealand. That is what he wrote to the New Zealand Immigration Service. He said that Mr Peron was a great friend of his.

Mr Hide, who is familiar with some of Mr Peron’s recent writings, has refused to say whether he made an error of judgment by writing the letter. If we go to the first indented point of page 6 of the decision of the Chief Censor of Film and Literature—and I cannot read it out—we will see a series of comments taken from the publication of that man, Jim Peron, that clearly point to the kind of man he is; the kind of man who should not be in this country. I cannot read them to members, because they are too gruesome. But on page 8 there is the finding: “The magazine therefore promotes and supports the exploitation of children and young persons for sexual purposes”.

Rodney Hide is the brave leader of the ACT party, soon to be the “Absent party” from Parliament. Yesterday, when Scoop contacted Mr Hide’s office for comments regarding the censor’s decision in respect of Unbound—that is Mr Peron’s publication—it was advised that Mr Hide would be making no comments on the matter whatsoever.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Very brave!

Yes. He throws his weight around, but here he has been outed, alongside Jim Peron, and still he has not made a public apology for being the chief facilitator in having that fart blossom in New Zealand. That is the truth.

💬 Rodney Hide: How scary! How upsetting!

I tell Mr Hide that it is upsetting, because we in this country and in this Parliament should be concerned for the welfare and security of the New Zealand people—clearly something that is very absent from his mind. He supported bringing in a disgraceful individual from the United States whom no other country will have and who is into rank and file paedophilia to the extent of advocating it down to 8 years of age. Mr Hide should be ashamed of himself. It is a disgrace.

But putting aside that mere aberration of politics, I say that in a few hours’ time a great bill will come before Parliament. It has regard to a tragedy that happened in 1986 when a drafting of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into our law. The result has been division, waste, and a corruption of a culture, a people, and a unified country.

In 1986 Geoffrey Palmer put the words “have regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in legislation, and then it all started. For all the court cases and all the squabbles between Māori and Māori—and there have been countless millions of dollars spent in such squabbles—and between Māori and others, we have a definition that nobody in Parliament, from the Prime Minister to all her Cabinet Ministers, back-benchers, and so-called lawyers, can describe to the satisfaction of any halfway-sane human being. Not one Labour member—or, for that matter, one Green Party member or Progressive member—can tell me what the principles are. Not one judge, lawyer, or academic can tell me what the principles are. Nevertheless, they remain in legislation. About $400 million per year is spent in all sorts of departments and bureaucracies, by all sorts of civil servants, on having regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Debate interrupted.