General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today we heard from the Prime Minister the new motto of the Labour Government. Members might remember that a week or so ago she said in the House: “By definition, I can’t leak.” The new motto for Labour is: “By definition, we can do no wrong.” Whenever something goes wrong, Labour Ministers say: “I didn’t do it.” It does not matter that Trevor Mallard was the Minister of Education for 6 years, overseeing the wreckage and trail of destruction of so many young New Zealanders’ aspirations. He just says: “Nick Smith did it.” It is now 8 years since Nick Smith was the Minister of Education. So that is the new motto. If something goes wrong, then it cannot possibly be a Labour Minister who did it.

Well, let us look at the accumulated record of the last 2 weeks. I went through a list of what has happened, and I thought—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table documents showing that Nick Smith was Minister less than 6 years ago, not 8.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

If that Minister cared one bit about young New Zealanders, he would have read the documents given to him by his ministry telling him that New Zealand Scholarship would be a shambles. If he cared one bit about young New Zealanders, he would not be sitting here; he would be fixing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), which again, in 2005, will cheat 130,000 New Zealanders. That is what that Minister should be doing, instead of trying to sling dirt around the place. Labour’s motto is: “If I did it, and it went wrong, it wasn’t me. I wasn’t there.” It does not matter how big the mess is.

Of course, it starts at the top with Helen Clark. I see there is more media-grovelling today about her great management of David Benson-Pope. I tell the media that she might have dug the grave quickly, but it is still a grave. I do not know what that man did at school, but I do know that he was a lazy, incompetent, and arrogant Minister, who, when he became Associate Minister of Education on 20 December 2004, said: “There are no issues in education.” That is what he said, and Helen Clark believed him.

So what has happened to the once-proud Labour Party that used to see itself as the defender of State education—the one that cared about students; the one that knew how to do it? In the space of 2 weeks, the following has happened. A damning report on the 111 system was released, which has resulted in the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police totally losing credibility. They will both go. The chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has resigned. The chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been sacked. A damning report has come out on the New Zealand Scholarship. Of course, most people do not realise that the real report—the one about the NCEA—is yet to come, and it will affect 130,000 students, not 2,000, as in the scholarship report. Then there is the Doone affair and all the twistings and turnings. Has it not been exquisite to watch the cunning of that intelligent and articulate Prime Minister as she has wrangled her way around some basic contradictions? She told the court one thing and the Parliament another. That is the guts of it.

Here is the question: what is it that Helen Clark is managing? I ask the House to consider what significant issue Helen Clark has said anything of interest on to the nation this year. What is a significant issue that she is pushing? What is she leading? I tell members that the last thing she said that anyone heard was in her prime ministerial speech, and it was that young women with young babies should go to work, because they are holding back the economy—and we know how popular that was. The nation is working out this fundamental point—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is customary that we have interjections of a rare and witty sort, but I notice that the Hon Trevor Mallard has been interjecting, which tells us that they were not rare or witty. Could you ask him to at least do it rarely.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. The interjections were well beyond what is acceptable.

The nation is working out one fundamental fact about this Government. It is that Labour’s values are not New Zealand’s values. That is what it is coming down to. Not only is Labour incompetent, but its values are not New Zealand’s values.

It was interesting that National was led in the debate today by the Hon Bill English, and that he got a clap from more than half his caucus. It was just under 3 years ago that Bill English led his party to the worst electoral defeat in the modern history of the National Party. It was not surprising that 8 months later he was stabbed in the back by the honourable, or the less than honourable, Don Brash. Everybody in National thought that Bill English was dead and buried, but Bill English is now back on his feet and he sees a chance. He sees the chance created by Don Brash once again showing himself to be an inept leader.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We heard Mr Goff refer to Dr Brash as the “less than honourable Don Brash”. That is totally unacceptable. I am surprised he was not called to heel for that. I certainly took offence, and I ask that he be made to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Don Brash showed once again, with his latest blunder, that he is incompetent as a leader. He is not fit to lead this country.

Last week we had the potential for one of the greatest disasters that could possibly befall this country—the threatened introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. If ever there was an issue on which there should have been bipartisanship in this House and in this country, it was in defeating the threat, whether it was real or a hoax, of foot-and-mouth disease. Instead, the honourable Dr Brash played politics with the issue. When asked by TVNZ what he thought of the Government’s handling of the issue, Dr Brash said: “I am surprised that they made a public statement about it at all, to be frank. If it’s only a hoax, they have done a lot of damage to our reputation.” That was the most irresponsible statement that I can recall hearing in 23 years in politics. The week ended with Jim Sutton scoring 10 out of 10 for biosecurity and agriculture, and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Don Brash scoring 0 out of 10.

What did Don Brash think that a cover-up of foot-and-mouth in this country would achieve? He talked about reputation. He would have buried the reputation of this country as an agricultural exporter for all time. This would have been New Zealand’s Chernobyl. If members think that is an exaggeration, I quote from Annabel Young. She is a former long-serving National MP and is now the chief executive of Federated Farmers. She said on television: “Even if you think it’s a hoax, you still need to tell everybody, because otherwise you are in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people will never trust you again.” That is what that man would have done to this country. The Auckland president of Federated Farmers, Keith Kelly, made the point that the issue of foot-and-mouth should never have been a political football and that Jim Sutton was giving 100 percent to the situation. “Mr Sutton’s advice”, Mr Kelly said, “will come from the highly competent people, knowledgable people, who realise that New Zealand’s biosecurity transcends politics.” But not Dr Brash. Of all issues, Dr Brash chose to try to make a political football out of this one.

If we had not been transparent, if we had not been absolutely honest, if we had not taken the people into our confidence, how would we have stopped the potential spread, the transfer of livestock, and the risk to New Zealand’s biosecurity? How would we have had the credibility that we won from the international community? It saw that we were professional and transparent, and as a result of the way this Government and Jim Sutton handled the issue, not one country stopped our exports, with the marginal exception of Mexico for a short period of time. The New Zealand Herald got it right. It said that honesty was the best policy, and it has paid off.

Don Brash would have destroyed this country. He is not fit to lead it. In the latest poll, Don Brash, at 15 percent as preferred Prime Minister, is at the lowest point he has ever been in the leadership stakes. He fell 5 percent last month. Don Brash is on 15 percent and Helen Clark is on 41 percent. When the election occurs in this country—and the election is based on leadership—the New Zealand people will vote for Helen Clark, who has given this country 6 years of competent and professional leadership, as opposed to Don Brash, who has blundered time and again and shown himself to be incompetent as a leader. That is why Bill English got the applause that he did in the House today, because the National Party is desperate and is looking for an alternative. Don Brash is on borrowed time.

There is another man who should leave this House with his tail between his legs. I want to bring the House’s attention to Mr George Hawkins, but before I do that, I will mention a couple of names. Does anyone remember Duncan Taylor? Detective Constable Duncan Taylor was shot dead in November 2003. Does anyone remember Nigel Hendrikse? He was stabbed and permanently disabled by Mongrel Mob member John Gillies in 1993. I refer the House to the promises made by George Hawkins that he would protect our men and women in blue on the streets, and that he would provide them with the resources they need to do their job. So far it has taken 5 years for George Hawkins to provide front-line officers with body armour and stab-proof vests, and still he procrastinates.

That is appalling, because if we look back through parliamentary questions, we find that the commissioner knew about the problem in 2000. In 2003 the issue was raised by New Zealand First. On 1 April the Government told us that a great big project would be completed by 23 July 2004, and that stab-proof and bulletproof vests would be available, and still it procrastinates. Then, in the January-February edition of the New Zealand Police Association newsletter, we saw that an officer was protected by a stab-proof vest that he had had to buy himself.

I have just come back from visiting the Los Angeles Police Department, and I can show Mr Hawkins that it is not a problem to find body armour. I say to Mr Hawkins that the body armour I am wearing right now is available to him if he wants to get off his lazy backside and buy it. That body armour is on issue to every front-line officer in Los Angeles. Police recruits are issued with this body armour at the moment they sign up and get their uniform. Does this Minister care? Why are our police not being given body armour such as this? I ask Mr Hawkins why it is taking 5 years to finalise a purchase of stab-resistant body armour so that the men and women in our force are safe. [Interruption] I have sat here in the House all day and no one has been aware that I was wearing a bulletproof vest.

If the Los Angeles Police Department thinks it important enough to make the men and women in their force safe by giving every one of them a bulletproof vest, why do we have officers like John Dustow having to go and buy their own in New Zealand? I will tell members why. It is because we have an incompetent, useless, pathetic, lazy, do-nothing Minister of Police, who cannot extract the money out of his tight-fisted Treasurer. Where are the priorities? We now know from my question in the House today that this Government would rather pay for a sex change for a paedophile and rapist than provide money for bulletproof, stab-proof vests, such as this, for the men and women in our police force.

I want Mr Hawkins, for once in his life, to stand up and take accountability. This is a occupational safety and health issue, I say to the Government. This Government tells everybody that it supports the workers of New Zealand. It tells everybody that it supports the police. It chastises the Opposition for criticising the police when they get it wrong, and it says that we are anti-police.

I say to the Government that this Thursday is “money where your mouth is” time. New Zealand First will be looking in the Budget. If we do not see funding for every officer to be issued with their personal bulletproof, stab-resistant vest, then we will hold this Government to account. The Government should not talk to us any longer about supporting the men and women of the force if it takes as long as this—5 long years. The Minister of Police had 9 years in Opposition of chastising three Governments. He told three Governments that they could not resource the police, and that they had to use Twink to paint over the damage on their police cars, and what has he done? He has done nothing.

The Minister is useless and incompetent, and the officers on the street are out there now buying their own vests because they have given up on George Hawkins and the Commissioner of Police. There is no leadership. There is no priority focused on the health and well-being of officers. Maybe that is why so many of them are throwing their hands up in the air and walking away from the police force. What struck me with the police forces of Los Angeles and San Francisco was that the average length of service is 20 to 30 years.

I wonder whether that flak jacket will end up on eBay, along with New Zealand First’s policies. I want to say, right from the start, that more and more people are asking me what has happened to Don Brash. “Whatever happened to Don Brash?”, people are saying. Where has he gone? He used to be the leader of the National Party. They have been asking me whether I remember that person. We should send out a search-and-rescue party for him. I hope he has some scroggin, because the search-and-rescue party could be out for some time.

The reason why people are saying that is the reason why he is disappearing absolutely in the polls. As the last Television One poll showed, our Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who does know how to lead—has gone up 1 percent to 41 percent, and the so-called Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, has gone down 5 percent to 15 percent. He is in a permanent slide. The reason for that is that no one knows what he is on about.

I take up a couple of the points that my colleague Phil Goff made about foot-and-mouth disease. The reality is that people could not believe what Don Brash said. It did not get sufficient coverage. He said: “I am surprised they made a public statement about it at 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 whether in fact there was any truth in the allegations at all.”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who said that?

That was Don Brash, the leader of the National Party.

In the old days Federated Farmers and the National Party used to be linked, but this is what Tom Lambie, the president of Federated Farmers, said: “We are also very pleased that the government has taken the decision to announce this probable hoax as soon as possible,”. Meat and Wool New Zealand stated: “The Government has acted promptly and responsibly in dealing with this issue, including advising key industry participants in New Zealand and overseas.”

But that is not really the point. The point is that those things are what the newspapers and the commentators are saying. The Timaru Herald stated: “A prime case of foot in mouth almost went unnoticed last week when National leader Don Brash suggested in a television interview that the Government should have kept the foot-and-mouth scare a secret. Remarkable. Has Dr Brash no idea what is at stake for New Zealand if there is even a hint that we are not up with the play when it comes to such outbreaks, even if they are subsequently shown to be hoaxes?”. The Dominion Post awarded that particular leader the “Wally of the Week” award by asking: “Did he really think the Government could have kept secret a foot-and-mouth threat while at the same time quarantining a busy island off the coast of New Zealand’s biggest city?”.

That is why the leader of the National Party is down to 15 percent in the polls. That is why he has no support out there from the general public of New Zealand. That is why the National Party is divided over who should lead it as it goes into the next election. We can see it from over here on the Government side. We watch the groups over there on the Opposition side as they chat, plot, and talk. They know that this bloke ain’t gonna do it for them, and they do not know whether to go with him till the end and then sort it out afterwards, or to have a desperate effort beforehand.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They want Winston!

Well, of course, that is the issue; now there is some talk about whether the National Party should join up with Winston Peters. Mr Brash once said, back in 2003, that he would work with Winston Peters. Indeed, he said that he would work with the devil to get rid of this Government. But now, just a little while ago, he has said that National members will not sell their souls just to get into office, and that they certainly will not be offering the leadership of the next Government as a bargaining chip.

So the real problem is that no one knows what Don Brash is actually talking about. When he says something, no one knows whether he actually means it. That is true of whatever he says. Do members remember the issue of 4 weeks’ annual leave? That was going to go—by lunchtime—but now it is back. What about superannuation? Dr Brash said that the “Cullen fund” was an outrage, but now National thinks it will keep with it. And what about being nuclear-free? He said that if National were in Government today, it would get rid of the ban on nuclear propulsion by lunchtime. Do members remember that? Now that party is going to keep it.

I can well remember a comment made by John Tamihere, once Paul Swain became the Minister of Labour. I remember Mr Tamihere saying very clearly in the media that we were not to worry, because “Swainy and the boys” would fix everything: “Now that the girls have gone, ‘Swainy and the boys’ will fix it.” Well, the problem with that Minister’s contribution is that it is pretty clear the only thing that has been fixed is “Swainy”. The fact of the matter is that that member should spend less time looking for Opposition politicians, and more time looking for Iraqi immigrants, so that at every question time when he comes to the Chamber he is not embarrassed by members on the Opposition benches. He was said to fume at his departmental officials when he discovered, on coming down here and thinking he had the ace under his sleeve, that he had the completely wrong individual. That member should concentrate on watching his own back.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is trying to dazzle the nation by convincing it that she cannot leak: “By definition, I can’t leak.” Well, the same cannot be said of Dover Samuels and of other Ministers. But the fact remains that nine Labour Ministers have been badly punished and relieved of their responsibilities under this Prime Minister. They have been sacked—stripped of their responsibilities—because the allegations that swirled around them did not allow them to stay at their posts. So there was Dover Samuels, Ruth Dyson, Marian Hobbs—do members remember Phillida Bunkle, vaguely, or the curtains? There was also Harry Duynhoven, poor old Lianne Dalziel, Tariana Turia, John Tamihere, and now David Benson-Pope.

The difference is that we must ask why all those other members and Ministers have been relieved of their responsibilities when allegations have swirled around them, but the Prime Minister has not applied the same standard to her own behaviour, in respect of Peter Doone. If those allegations were swirling around her, as they have been, imagine whether she would have been able to remain at her post, based on her own test. Not a chance! We see double standards—one for the Prime Minister and one for the rest of her Cabinet if they trip up.

I also say that the education sector is in a shambles. Heads have rolled. Steve Maharey was relieved of the responsibility for tertiary education. Trevor Mallard was relieved of the responsibility for schools—but was brought back, under cover of night, after David Benson-Pope was stood down from his responsibilities. The chairperson and chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission resigned in its first year of operation, and the new chairperson of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has gone. The chief executive of the authority has gone. The Teachers Council has lost its chair once, and its chief executive four times—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What?

SIMON POWER:—four times, under this Government. The fact of the matter is that this Government has lost complete control of the education agenda, and we have a Prime Minister who refuses to apply to herself the standards she applies to everybody else in the Labour Government. That, to New Zealanders, is absolutely unacceptable—completely unacceptable.

Meanwhile, issues concerning Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, the shoddy quality of tertiary courses, New Zealand Scholarship and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and 1,200 more education bureaucrats are clogging up the chances of our young people getting a first-class, international education. But what has the Prime Minister done? What has the Minister of Education done? They have instituted no fewer than 15 reviews into organisations associated with the education sector. So the standard is: “If in doubt, review, but if you are Prime Minister never ever apply the standards to yourself that you apply to other Ministers and members of Parliament.”

The fact of the matter is that the education system in this country is sick, and it is a reflection of the state of the Government. Come election day, that Government and that party will pay the price for their arrogance, for being remiss when it comes to the education system, and for having a Prime Minister who applies one standard to herself and another standard to every other Minister in her Cabinet.

United Future is calling for urgent action on the appalling situation revealed by the report on the employment conditions in the fishing industry, and in this debate I will focus on that serious matter. If legislation is needed, we have offered our support to the Government to take urgency at the first opportunity in order to address that shameful matter, because we do consider it to be serious. Firstly, the report covers the issue of foreign crews on New Zealand vessels, and then, secondly, the more important and disturbing matter of foreign charter vessels. Two companies were investigated, not because they were the only ones that may have been at fault, but because they were the only two New Zealand companies that had approval in principle to employ foreign crew.

The report’s summary states that the Amaltal Fishing Co. Ltd has some matters to be addressed. We understand from the Minister’s answers to questions yesterday that Amaltal Fishing has agreed to go to the Employment Relations Authority to review those issues. To be fair to the company, the report made it clear in paragraph 13 that the foreign crew members on Amaltal Fishing boats were happy with their working conditions, and crew members noted that the conditions were much better that those on boats they had worked on in their own countries’ fishing industries. That is how it should be: foreign workers coming to New Zealand should find better conditions here than they had at home. The report then stated that no problems were identified with the Sealord Group Ltd, but went on to state that the full information required by the inspector was not available within the deadline for the report. In reality, that means that the Sealord’s company has not been investigated, at all. That may explain why Sealord’s is so willing to work with the department and the New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild to change its pay practice in order to ensure compliance with the law, as explained by the Minister yesterday. I will say no more about Sealord’s at this stage.

But then we come to the matter of foreign charter vessels, which is the real reason that United Future called for this report. Foreign charter vessels are the real issue of concern in our fishing industry. Approximately 35 to 50 foreign-owned vessels, with approximately 2,500 foreign crew, are fishing under charter to New Zealand companies in our exclusive economic zone. Point 35 on page 7 of the report states: “There is a strong possibility that conditions of employment on foreign-owned vessels fall short of the standard within New Zealand.” That they “fall short” is a bit of an understatement, really, when we look at it. We can look at quotes from page 15 of the report, some of which were read out in the House yesterday, and I will refer to just one more case, that of a worker who suffered frostbite from working in the freezer that was bad enough to require hospital treatment in Timaru. When he returned to the vessel, he was made to remove the dressings and get on with the work, back in the freezer.

Those sorts of conditions are appalling. On page 14, point 4 of the report makes it clear that those appalling stories do not originate from the vessel under charter to Amaltal Fishing, as that company’s boat had Indonesian and Japanese crew and the offending vessel had a mix of Indonesian, Filipino, and Chinese crew, with Korean officers. That is why it is important for the investigation to be completed. We must identify which New Zealand companies are turning a blind eye to the appalling treatment of foreign workers, so they can be named and held accountable, without a shadow being cast over all New Zealand companies and the good ones being tarred with same brush.

This appalling report raises the question of why we use foreign charter vessels. The answer seems to be simply because that is how quota holders get the best price for leasing their quota, and I say that that is wrong. It has developed as a practice that discriminates against New Zealand fishers who want to lease quota and catch our fishing resource themselves, because the consequence of using foreign charter vessels is that there is no margin for a reasonable profit for New Zealand fishers and fishing companies that pay our taxes and our wage rates. They therefore struggle to compete with the charter vessels that use almost slave labour and pay no New Zealand taxes. Rather than seeing a level playing field that allows all New Zealand fishers a chance to benefit from our exclusive economic zone and its resources, we are seeing the appalling exploitation of foreign workers cause a skewing of the price of quota, which benefits not real fishers but paper fishers who never go to sea any more to earn an honest living. That must be stopped, and we call on the Government either to fix it or ban it.

United Future’s suggestion is to take the first step of requiring inspectors to be on every foreign vessel and requiring that the cost of that be passed on to the New Zealand companies that are chartering them. Without inspectors we will not be able to verify and expose, if necessary, the truth about what is going on. What is going on is horrifying to those New Zealanders who have learnt about it in the last few weeks.

“Save the whales” is such an iconic catchcry in this country and, indeed, around the world. It has been the call to action for environmentalists and conservationists, and for indigenous peoples and coastal communities, for decades. It has led to some of the most significant actions and campaigns about the protection of species on our planet ever seen. So say it out loud: “Save the whales”, and imagine small jet boats taking on those vast whaling ships in the Atlantic Ocean, or remember perhaps the faded photos of whales being slaughtered, their skins slit open with axes, and their blood staining the seas a deep, viscous red.

Very little is known of the ecological role played by whales, but we do know that they have the largest brains on our planet, as complex as human brains, and that they are capable of highly complex thinking. The humpback whale creates the most complex, long-lasting, repetitive sound patterns of any non-human animal on our planet. Many whale species have been reduced to less than 1 percent of the number alive at the beginning of the 20th century. Most species of whales remain endangered. Many are at such a low population level and breed so slowly that they show no signs of recovery from the decimation they were subjected to between the 1940s and 1970s, when highly industrialised whaling took place.

Whales are as vulnerable and fragile now as they have ever been. Yet Japan has recently asked the International Whaling Commission to approve an extension of its annual kill of 400 minke whales to include the slaughter of humpback whales. Japan claims that it is for scientific reasons, but which science do the Japanese do with the whales they kill? I know—it is consumer taste testing, or maybe the important testing of the latest high-tech whale-killing technology. The scientific claims of Japan are a sham.

Japan claims that the information it obtains about what whales eat and their age and gender is necessary for the International Whaling Commission to manage sustainable utilisation, but that research has never been requested by the International Whaling Commission. It is, in fact, opposed by the commission. Information about whales’ diets, their population, and age structure are most useful to those who want to exploit and kill them.

Japan is also well known for its buying of small countries’ votes on the commission. Until 2001 those countries included St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, and Antigua in the Caribbean, as well as Guinea and the Solomon Islands. It has bought the votes of other countries since then. The assembling of a bloc that always votes in line with Japan’s request has enabled Japan to thwart moves such as the creation of a South Pacific whale sanctuary, because of the need to get 75 percent of the vote. The sanctuary is strongly advocated for by New Zealanders. The situation is approaching the point where Japan and its supporters will have a majority of votes on the International Whaling Commission. Japan aims to return the commission to a whaling industry - controlled body, so that commercial whaling can resume. Since the moratorium came into effect in 1986, Japan has spent at least $200 million to buy countries’ votes through fisheries grants given to them by the Fisheries Agency of Japan.

So what must happen if we are to continue to fight to save the whales, which are critical to our ecology and form part of New Zealand’s tourist economy? What are we to do? This Labour Government needs to call in the Japanese ambassador to express opposition to Japan’s whaling activities and its recent proposals to increase the take of minke and humpback whales. It needs to make it clear to Japan that any pursuit of those proposals will lead to trade and diplomatic sanctions. At the International Whaling Commission this Government needs to actively oppose Japan’s proposals, and to work in concert with the Australian Government and other nations to make it clear that the Pacific region will not tolerate the continued destruction of those marine mammals.

The Green Party is continuing to work with the Australian Greens to develop a trans-Tasman action plan that may well include consumer boycotts. We call on this country to support them.

It is plain that the National Party and the ACT party have descended to the gutter together, hand in hand in their attempt to take the electorate’s mind off the lack of leadership and lack of policy that National represents, and off the lack of leadership and lack of political future that the ACT party represents. There has been quite disgraceful behaviour, and it is not clear whether it was a private treaty—an uncivil union—between Judith Collins and Rodney Hide, or whether the National Party secretly agreed with the idea of the two of them joining forces in the most disgusting behaviour I have ever seen in this House in the nearly 15 years I have been here.

The ACT party will not be here after the election, and the behaviour of the current leader will have been the main contributor to that. So to that extent, ACT is utterly irrelevant. However, National’s descent into the gutter is of more concern, because National is attempting to cover up its lack of leadership and its lack of policy.

It is hard to imagine a more unsuitable person to be a Prime Minister of this country than Dr Don Brash. If Don Brash had been the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time, we would have had troops in Iraq as part of the coalition called upon by the United States, without UN backing for that invasion. That is where New Zealand would have been. It would have been a case of follow the leader—Don Brash following leaders George Bush and John Howard. That, of course, is entirely predictable from someone like Dr Brash.

What was totally unpredictable, though, was his reaction to the foot-and-mouth scare we have had over the last few days. He said that he would not have issued a public statement on the fact that a threat had been made. He would have kept it a secret, and he thinks that it makes a difference that it was probably a hoax. He said that we should have tried harder as a Government to find out whether there was any truth to the allegations, and to say absolutely nothing in the meantime. How does that member think that our trading partners would have reacted to that sort of behaviour?

I know that some people have already referred to a Timaru Herald editorial, but I want to quote another section from it. It states: “How to make certain there is no truth in the allegations without public co-operation generated through an open release of information is not clear. Just as it is not clear what damage has been done through the Government’s tell-all approach. Surely it was far more dangerous to keep the affair under wraps and run the risk of embarrassing leaks. What would our trading partners have thought of us then? Probably that we had something to hide. While there was even the smallest doubt that the release of foot-and-mouth might be true, then it had to be treated with the utmost care—including having the public, both at home and abroad, onside with what the New Zealand authorities were doing. All evidence shows that this was achieved.”

I want to put on record my congratulations to the Hon Jim Sutton and to a Cabinet led by the best Prime Minister this country has ever seen, a Cabinet that takes hard issues like that one and makes principled decisions on them that have the support of the general public. That party over there would have hidden the potential risk to our country, if Don Brash had been the leader. Fortunately, he will not be leader for very long.

The National Party has no leadership and no policy. No wonder even high-profile potential list candidates are falling like flies. Te Maire Tau and Judith Ablett-Kerr were both being touted as being very high-profile people to join the National Party list, although we have been told that Judith Collins has spiked Judith Ablett-Kerr’s chances, because Judith Collins could not stand the competition from her.

We know that that is not correct. The real reason is that even with a promise of being No. 5 and No. 6 on the list respectively, they could work out the odds of their not being elected to Parliament, at all. There was no guarantee that they would be elected, and neither wanted to risk giving up their work and their standing in the community to be part of a humiliating defeat, which is what National has destined itself for. They wanted an easy ride into Cabinet, not an easy ride on to a seat on the Opposition front bench—if they were lucky.

Don Brash has not got what it takes. The sooner he steps down, the better.

That was the previous Minister of Immigration, who had to leave Cabinet, at the Prime Minister’s request, for making untrue statements to the media. We have learnt quite a lot recently about the Labour Cabinet, Prime Minister Helen Clark, and how they operate. Here are a couple of things we have learnt. Firstly, they do not care about the students in the education system. There is not one care for Mr David Benson-Pope’s victims. We have learnt that their first response to any concern is to cover up. We learnt from Jill Pettis that this Government knew for months about the complaints about David Benson-Pope sticking tennis balls—

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just because someone keeps repeating something does not mean to say it is true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

💬 Jill Pettis: I explained to the House immediately Mr Hide made that allegation last week that he was totally misrepresenting me. I repeat it, and ask him to withdraw.

We know from Jill Pettis that the Government knew about it for months.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member made the explanation last week, did she?

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She did.

Did she make a personal explanation?

💬 Jill Pettis: I did not make a personal explanation. I took a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is a debatable matter, and it should not have been raised.

We know from Jill Pettis that they have known about it for months. That is why she will not make a personal explanation. She does not want to end up where David Benson-Pope is going to end up. So the Government knew about it for months. What, then, was its next response? It was to deny that anything happened. That is why David Benson-Pope is in the gun now, and we have—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we have somewhat of a dilemma here. It has been made clear by the Government that it knew that that toerag and his TV3 mates had been digging around in Dunedin, not what they had made up.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): On the same point?

💬 Simon Power: It is about the member’s point of order. No matter what the Minister’s personal views of comments made in the debating chamber, all members are honourable members. To describe Mr Hide in the way that Trevor Mallard did is simply unacceptable and contrary to the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member is absolutely right. I was going to ask the member, in the interests of the House, to withdraw that comment.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

So Government members knew about it for months. Then, when they were asked about it, David Benson-Pope denied it. Helen Clark then went on the attack, trying to shoot the messenger. Why? Because they did not want those men to come out and explain what had happened to them. So the next response was for Helen Clark to go on the attack—attack TV3, the messenger; and attack the MP, Rodney Hide, for muckraking. Then what happened? The students came forward and said that what Rodney Hide said is true; it happened to them. A student came forward and said: “What Rodney Hide said is true. I sat beside Phil Weaver when it happened to him.” Another student, who sat behind Phil Weaver, stood up on TV to say that yes, it happened. That is what happened.

We are now in a particularly difficult situation, because Television One reported that David Benson-Pope lied to this House, in answers to questions. Television One reported twice that David Benson-Pope lied to this House in answers to questions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member may not say those words. He may not repeat them.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I in a position where I cannot refer to a Television One news report? Is the position now that Television One can have people on, saying that David Benson-Pope lied to this House, but I am not allowed to report what Television One said?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I would like to confirm that the member’s understanding is correct—standards of integrity are required in this House. Unfortunately, they are not required for either the member or Television One outside the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I intervened, I say to Mr Hide, because in my view the member was speaking directly about a member in this House. He cannot do that, and that is why I pulled him up. It had nothing to do with television, at all. No member is to use something that happened outside the House and weave it into his or her contribution in the Chamber so that it becomes unacceptable to the House. I find it unacceptable. I will not allow it.

So we have the situation where TV can report something, and I will not go there. I have done the appropriate thing and raised that with the Speaker.

Then we have the next stage. The Minister has disappeared on full pay, is hiding out, and cannot take questions in the House—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: At least he hasn’t gone to Fiji to rip people off.

—and we have the likes of Trevor Mallard yelling out, trying to belittle the people who are asking these questions.

It is inappropriate for the Government to be conducting its own inquiry into the behaviour of Mr Benson-Pope. I have no faith and no confidence in the ability of Helen Clark to run an inquiry. Why? Because we now know what happened to Peter Doone. We now know what has happened to a succession of inquiries that this Government has organised. It sets the terms of reference. If it was truly open and transparent it would be consulting with Don Brash, it would be consulting with Winston Peters, and in particular, it would be consulting with me. But no, this Government does not want to find out the truth.

We know this about Trevor Mallard. He does not care about the students. He does not care what happened to them. He does not care about the standards being set in our schools. All he cares about is defending someone against the indefensible. That is what Trevor Mallard is on about. Rather than listen to the students, rather than watch TV and see what the students are saying, Trevor Mallard goes on the attack. We do not hear Helen Clark now saying: “I stand by Benson-Pope and his word.” We do not hear Helen Clark saying: “I’ve got no worries.” We see Helen Clark slowly inching herself away from David Benson-Pope. By the time there is an inquiry, she will be 100 miles away. She is now saying: “Oh, that’s what he told Parliament, that’s what he told me, and I accept his word.” She is setting up David Benson-Pope for a big fall.

Listening to the previous contribution I was reminded of a song from my youth called “Let’s Do the Limbo Rock”. [Interruption] No, it is “Let’s Do the Limbo Rock”. I think the key words are: “How low can you go?”. They should be: “Let’s do the Hide rock. How low can you go? You can go as low as 2 percent.”

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Rodney could never do it.

Absolutely. [Interruption] I was quoting, to make the point about “Limbo Rock”. How low can the member go? He can go as low as 2 percent. That is why this morning’s New Zealand Herald—the august Auckland paper that serves my region—reported a serious move, a desperate move, to find a way for ACT to kick itself out of the 2 percent rating. People are saying: “John Banks, come back! We weren’t happy with you at some conference—but hey, if that is what it takes, if you are our rescue package, come back into the fold.”

Let me tell members that Mr Banks will not settle for just list place No. 5 or No. 6. There is only one number Mr Banks wants on the ACT list, and it is above two. It is the only number above two. We know what that number is. It is only a matter of time; it will be a formality. Believe me, work is afoot to recruit him. At least Mr Banks, unlike the previous speaker, would add a bit of colour and zest to that particular failing party.

The second amazing part of the pantomime on the Opposition benches was the New Zealand Herald headline—the New Zealand Herald, which serves my region, is quite an interesting paper—on Monday, 16 May about Mr Winston Peters becoming Prime Minister. I assure my New Zealand First parliamentary colleagues that I am not saying that Doug Woolerton, Bill Gudgeon, and, from my patch, Barbara Stewart have suggested this scenario at all. I assure Mr Peters that their list positions should be in no danger at all. I do not think they had any role in this. I suggest that one of the journos, Audrey Young—and she can never reveal her sources, of course, but I do not think she was talking to New Zealand First MPs—had been having a bit of a chat to some National Party MPs about the desperate scenarios they are looking at. I have always said to people that one can have Helen Clark or one can have the other fellow, Dr Brash. I did not think that, in fact, Dr Brash would be deputy and Mr Peters would be leader.

One of the reasons, perhaps, why those National Party MPs suggested that scenario is amply demonstrated by the recent foot-and-mouth scare. As a member for the Waikato region—obviously the foot-and-mouth scare affects not only the nation as a whole but also the key dairy industry export region in New Zealand, the region I represent—I say that Mr Brash’s thinking that we should somehow have kept the foot-and-mouth scare, hopefully a hoax, secret was absolutely bizarre. Annabel Young, a former MP and now chief executive of Federated Farmers, said: “Even if you think it’s a hoax you still need to tell everybody, because otherwise you’re in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people will never trust you again. So they do need to tell people about it, even though they think it’s a hoax. They certainly can’t keep it a secret.”

Tom Lambie, the President of Federated Farmers, stated: “We are also very pleased that the government has taken the decision to announce this probable hoax as soon as possible …”. Meat and Wool New Zealand stated: “The Government has acted promptly and responsibly in dealing with this issue, including advising key industry participants in New Zealand and overseas.” Yes, Dr Brash has his foot in his mouth over foot-and-mouth, as I think has previously been said in this Chamber. And yes, that is the reason why some members of the National Party who are beginning to get desperate and beginning to mourn the fact that they will spend another 3 years in Opposition are even touting the idea, bizarre as it might sound, of having Mr Peters as Prime Minister in some sort of rotation deal with Dr Brash. What that would do for stability, I do not know.

I am delighted to take part in this debate. I want to canvass a bit of the history of what has been going on with the Government. I heard my colleague Simon Power raising the matter of the number of Ministers who have got themselves into trouble over time and been dealt with, and I started to scribble down a list of the various “gates” that have occurred under this Government. I have come to the conclusion that there are now more “gates” in the Government than on Molesworth Station.

We started off with “paintergate”, when the Prime Minister signed paintings that she had not actually painted. We then had “Bunkle-gate”, “Hobbs-gate”, and “Dyson-gate”, followed by “Dalziel-gate”, “Dover-gate”, and “Tamihere-gate—although others refer to that as Investigate. We have had “Doone-gate”, “111-gate”—which is a disaster—and “NCEA-gate”. Oh, God! That has so many “gates” that it is not funny. We have had “speeding-gate”, of which the Prime Minister says she did not know her car was going at 150 kilometres an hour. I ask members to get in a car, get someone to drive it at 150 kilometres and hour, and tell me they do not know they were going fast. Give us a break!

Now we have “Benson-Pope-gate”. We have “Families-gate”, with the chief executive of the Families Commission gone. We had Mr Yelash, who sued the Prime Minister successfully, paid for by us as taxpayers. I guess we would call that “Dally-gate”. Then there is “Peck-gate”. There are more “gates” in this Government than at Molesworth Station.

I want to pick up on something the Prime Minister raised today. She raised a grubby little thing today, and I will not let her get away with it. She raised Denis Marshall’s failure to resign over Cave Creek. I want to ask the Government whether it still stands by that sort of behaviour. A Government does two things. It sets policy, and it administers the actual operational side of government. I have heard Ministers in this Labour Government day after day—George Hawkins is a classic example—saying that they cannot be held to account for operational matters. I think that that is probably right, to some extent. If someone had fitted the wrong brake shoes to a truck, and the truck crashed off the road, it would be a bit hard to say to the Minister of Transport, sitting in his office in Wellington: “Did you not know that an engineer in a workshop somewhere had fitted the wrong brake shoes? You should resign.” I think that that would be a bit harsh.

On the Cave Creek matter, I do not believe that a single member of this House believes that the Minister of Conservation sitting here in charge of policy and funding could ever have known that the builder short-changed the plan that said to use bolts and decided to whip those bolts away. It was not a funding issue or an operational issue. The builder just used nails. How was the Minister in Wellington to know that? But the Labour Party yelled and screamed, and the current Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, Helen Clark, demanded Denis Marshall’s resignation because he was the Minister. She raised the matter again today.

But let us now turn to the performance of one of her Ministers, Trevor Mallard. Let us forget the operational side. I can understand that there are operational matters in education that go wrong and leave the Minister scratching his head at night and asking: “What the bloody hell’s going on here?”, and having to deal with it. But he has to take some responsibility for policy. Who implemented the whole of the schools education policy with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)? Do not blame just David Benson-Pope. He was too busy away playing tennis. Blame Trevor Mallard. By the time Benson-Pope became the Minister in charge of schools, the 2004 school year was over. So all of the implementation was Trevor Mallard’s.

What has gone wrong? Was it Karen Van Rooyen’s operational implementation? No. Was it Professor Fraser, the Chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? No; it was the policy they were handed. They were handed an absolute dog and told to implement it.

I want to tell this House, and Trevor Mallard, something about Trevor Mallard’s failure to listen. I took Trevor Mallard to Macleans College in early 2001, and 38 principals took him through chapter and verse about why NCEA would not work. They gave him chapter and verse about that. They were fantastic principals. They were not just from the decile 10 schools—they can get away from that sort of muck. People from Manurewa High School, Dargaville High School, and Western Heights High School were there. And yes, of course, the principal of Macleans College was there. Trevor Mallard never listened to a word they said, and now he says that he does not know why it has all turned to custard.

After that rant, I can say that we have seen in the last week some very, very interesting leadership manoeuvres, and, in one case, open rebellion. If we look first at the National Party in respect of manoeuvres, we see that we now have—[Interruption] We hear from the swamp-dweller, Mr Hide. We have Mr Key, who is the new pin-up boy for the National Party. Anybody who saw the Sunday programme would be advising Mr Key not to worry about attacks from the Government, but to worry about attacks from his own side. We know that some very, very brassed-off people are on that side now. Simon Power was demoted. He cannot write his own defence speeches—Jon Johansson from Victoria University does that. Mr Power is brassed off. Gerry Brownlee, the woodwork teacher who is whittling away over there, is brassed off. Katherine Rich, who was executed because she disagreed with her leader, is brassed off. Those three people believe that they have a greater claim than the so-called—as some National members have told me, and I do not use this in a derogatory sense—upstart from Helensville.

I will ask some questions, because there are manoeuvrings. Why is Dr Brash polling only 2 percent behind Winston Peters? Where has the fall come from? Has panic broken out on the National benches? I say that panic has broken out. Why, for instance, did Dr Brash on Tuesday, as we know, blow his stack in caucus? It was because he found out for the first time that Richard Worth and Murray McCully were actively and intensely negotiating the so-called power-sharing agreement with two New Zealand First members. Poor old Dr Brash had not known, so he blew.

Then we found out who those two New Zealand First members were. One was Ron Mark and the other—ironically; I had not heard of him for a while, or ever—was Edwin Perry. The problem was that Winston Peters, like Don Brash, did not know about the power-sharing agreement, either. So he blew his stack to many a journalist around here. I am glad that Ron Mark came out with a flak jacket on today, because, as God is my witness, when he next bumps into Winston Peters he will need it—not on the front, but on the back.

Then we turn to open rebellion. Open rebellion has to do with the ACT party. We heard a rant from the swamp-dweller, who, of course, has a wonderful track record of executing people before they are judged—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to do this, but I think that it does not add to the decorum of the House for Rodney Hide to be called a swamp-dweller. If no one on his own side will come to his aid, I will ask that the member desist from doing that.

I withdraw. Perhaps the more technical term would be “oceanic version of a bottom-dweller”. This is very interesting. The ACT party is haemorrhaging. We read in the New Zealand Herald: “One source told the Herald that the party was ‘haemorrhaging members, money and votes’ ”—Alan Gibbs must have closed his wallet—“and having Mr Banks on board was seen as a way of reversing that.” Deborah Coddington has given up. Donna Awatere Huata—a great member of credibility, of course—is history. I do not hear certain people from the bottom of the sewer reminding the House about that. Then we have to ask ourselves whether John Banks would actually make it.

In the New Zealand Herald article we found out that there has been open rebellion: “The courtship between John Banks and the Act Party has been rekindled as a group of desperate party members work to woo the former Auckland City mayor.” The article goes on to state: “Well-placed Act sources supporting the move believe Mr Banks would revitalise the party, but his added appeal was that he would attract some National Party voters …”. We have to ask whether there is any evidence for that. Who would want to put up the list a broken-down claiming horse like the former Auckland mayor, who got blown away and whose campaign manager, one Brian Nicholle, told porkies—just happens to be defended by that man of credibility, Rodney Hide, who is a good mate of his? There is somebody else whom I think Mr Peters brought up in the House who Mr Hide said was a good mate, and now that person is in trouble. Who is Brian Nicholle? The ACT campaign manager!

I looked for evidence—unlike Mr Hide—of the factional warfare in the ACT party. Where is the evidence? Today I was contacted by one of the factions in the ACT party, which obtained an item that I will table. It is an unusual item—it promotes John Banks. I received that item today, and I was told that one of the factions had produced it. It is a simple pen that has printed on it: “John Banks for Prime Minister”. Who on earth, other than an ACT party faction that is trying to get rid of “spongy pud” over there, would produce pens like that? Only an ACT party faction. I suspect that John Banks will be the ACT leader before the next election—even outside Parliament.

I seek the leave of the House to table a pen produced by an ACT party faction—I am not sure which one—promoting John Banks—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has identified it sufficiently. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.