General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is the first Wednesday debate of a new Parliament and the first Wednesday debate since the National Party in September historically lost its third election in a row. In doing so, the National Party has established itself in the record books as the least successful and the least effective Opposition in two generations, and have we not seen examples of that in its performance today? Sadly for the National Party members, it does not look like things are getting much better for them. A couple of weeks ago the New Zealand Herald, much mentioned in the House today, ran this headline: “National inflicts more self-abuse”. Well, it does not come as a surprise to anyone in this House that the National Party is a party of self-abusers—but they are still at it. Members need only look at what they have done so far this week.

Yesterday the Electoral Commission laid complaints with the police against the National Party, and the charges are serious charges surrounding electoral abuses, which the National Party president has now been forced to own up to. National breached the law of the land by spending $112,000 more on broadcasting advertisements than it was legally entitled to. The question is whether that is a case of the National Party deliberately cheating to defraud the electorate by breaching the electoral law and the Broadcasting Act. Well, the party president again jumped to its defence. She said it was not deliberate—that it was because they were incompetent. The National Party, which would have the country believe that it could competently manage the finances of this country, apparently cannot even manage to run competently its own financial affairs, even on a relatively straightforward matter.

The other instance of abuse this week was even more serious and on a personal level, and that was the statement made by its new, up-and-coming education spokesman Allan Peachey, who modestly describes himself as “a pop star” and “the best of the best”. I ask Mr Peachey to take a call in this debate in the House today to explain what was in his mind when he wrote to the woman principal of one of the schools in his electorate, threatening: “Yes, I do have a knife in your back, so be careful!”. The president of the Post Primary Teachers Association, Debbie Te Whaiti, I think accurately, described that attack as: “unprovoked, malicious, unethical and inexcusable.” It was all of those things. Clearly, here is a true future leader of the National Party, whose judgment, rationality, and behaviour we can all have faith and confidence in!

Speaking of leadership and knives in the back, I note that the National Party leadership clearly has cause for concern about its longevity and the stability of its party. I am not going to waste the time of the House with what Mr Brian Connell has said about that. But when somebody like Murray McCully attacks Simon Power, whom he describes as—Mr Power should stay and wait for this—the “pinstriped jailer from Manawatū”—I do not know what that means and, obviously, Mr Power is not going to stop and tell us—and when Gerry Brownlee launches an unprecedented attack on the Governor-General, and when there are leaks from the National caucus saying that Gerry Brownlee’s buffoonery means he does not deserve to stay on as deputy leader of the party, one can see the problems the National Party has.

On the back benches is an ambitious and frustrated group of National members, and those members are coming to the House for the first time and seeing the inadequacy and the poor performance of the National Party front bench and middle benches. Those new members see that those failed men on the front bench of the National Party, and the bench behind, are the cause of that once-great party’s 9 years in the political wilderness. The Sunday Star-Times described the National shadow Cabinet as “the return of the living dead,” and then went on to say that Don Brash was being measured up for a body bag. Well, it cannot come soon enough.

We can see why Mr Goff was so keen to divert attention from the performance of his fellow Minister David Benson-Pope. When Helen Clark was the Leader of the Opposition, she made all sorts of statements about political standards and ministerial accountability. She said: “We are calling for higher standards of ministerial accountability and behaviour.” [Interruption] Lianne Dalziel is someone who maybe should not be shouting out about this time.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: She’s the last person!

She would be the last person to want to call out anything. In March 1997 Helen Clark said in a speech to the Lower Hutt chamber of commerce—[Interruption] She did. She went on to say about Ms Dalziel, the member who keeps wanting to shout out: “I advised Lianne that in my view a clear line had been crossed between a statement which was misleading and a statement which was untrue.” Most of us, in the normal world, think “misleading” is pretty untrue, and that clearly is a statement and a standard that this Prime Minister is prepared to accept from her Ministers—certainly, from David Benson-Pope.

We have heard today from Mr Goff about editorials or comments written in newspapers many months ago. Well, let us have a look at some that were written today. What did the Press editorial state about Mr Benson-Pope and his behaviour? It stated: “But to excuse Benson-Pope’s performance is to set the standards of behaviour for Cabinet Ministers at an abysmally low level.” That is what the Christchurch Press said today about David Benson-Pope and Helen Clark’s decision to back that man, when there are all these other MPs in Labour who could take his place. How about the parochial Otago Daily Times? This is a newspaper that always backs its local people, and it has been backing Mr Benson-Pope all the way. Then yesterday it heard him change his story. No longer was he willing to say that, no, it did not happen; suddenly, he could not remember. Today, of course, he said it did not happen and he could not remember, all in the same breath.

This is what today’s Otago Daily Times editorial said about Mr Benson-Pope: “It has succeeded in substantially enlarging the sense that Mr Benson-Pope’s judgment is not reliable.”—that is what it said—“When measured by his own attempts this week to misrepresent the police report, his appreciation of public opinion verges on the contemptuous. Prime Minister Helen Clark does neither herself nor her unfortunate Cabinet Minister any good in turning a blind eye to the failings he has displayed.” That is what the editorial of his local newspaper said about him. That is what the Dunedin people think about David Benson-Pope. He is unfit for Cabinet and he is bringing down the rest of the Labour Party, although after some of the performances we have seen today they do not have to come down very far. That is the man who said in his press release on Sunday that the police report vindicated his stance.

Let us have a look at what “vindicated” means. One dictionary states that “vindicate” means “to clear someone of guilt or suspicion.” Well, did it? No, it did not—quite the opposite. Or it could mean “to provide justification for”. Well, it did not—quite the opposite. When Mr Benson-Pope said today in the House that he had told his press secretary to tell the truth when he was asked where the leaked document had come from, did any of us think that that must be true? I do not think too many of us felt it was. If he really had said that, then how come the document was leaked in the first place? Why did he not just put it out with a note, saying: “Here it is! Everyone come and get it.”?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was an honest leak.

Well, I think Mr Smith is too kind. What about the Herald on Sunday statement: “Last night he refused requests for an interview …”? That is what the article stated about Mr Benson-Pope. Mr Benson-Pope had leaked that report—or little excerpts from it—to that same Herald on Sunday reporter. On the one hand Mr Benson-Pope is leaking and on the other hand he is saying he is not here to talk about it. That man is dishonest and he needs to go.

I have just three words for that member: Casino Control Authority. I have a question about the difference between the Prime Minister and the caretaker Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is supported by her caucus, and the caretaker Leader of the Opposition is not—and the numbers are being done as we speak. The Prime Minister is universally admired from one end of this country to the other. Admittedly, it is a begrudging admiration from people who come from the other side of the political spectrum than Labour’s, but they admire her strength and ability. The caretaker Leader of the Opposition is regarded as an enormous disappointment, particularly by National Party supporters. He was funded to the nth degree to win the election, not to lose it like he did.

Phil Goff has already talked about the National Party’s spend, which was illegal. I want to talk about the record spend on non-attributable advertising this election—from the billboards that included what could be described as an incitement to racial division in this country, through to the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. Who paid for the billboards? Will anyone from the National Party stand up and say who paid for the billboards? Who was the American who was touting for money for the National Party over that whole period of time? I understand that those billboards cost over half a million dollars for the time that they were up, and we know that the money was collected overseas. How much? Who from? The return of expenses will not show that, because it was not attributable spending.

Then we had the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. Dr Brash knew that the Exclusive Brethren were going to publish and distribute the pamphlets, but when asked whether he knew who was behind those attack pamphlets, he said that no, he did not have a clue who was behind them. [Interruption] It is a bit rich for anyone on the Opposition side of the House to comment about me, when National’s own leader lied to the public of New Zealand. I understand that over half a million dollars was paid for the pamphlets, which were distributed free into every letterbox in the country. Again, we will never know the cost, because it is not attributable. So over $1,000,000 was spent on an election campaign, and the people of New Zealand will never know where that money came from. The maximum that any party can spend on attributable spending is $1,000,000, so National was ahead before it even got started.

The bottom line is, though, that several of the National back-benchers who are here today—particularly some of the better-known ones—were told that this election was a “cincher”. They were told that they would be sitting on the Government side of the House after the election, and that is why they are sitting there like stunned mullets on the Opposition side of the House, day after day. They cannot believe they lost the election; they were promised they would win it. They cannot believe how hopeless the leadership of the party is, and how unable it is to perform in Parliament. Don Brash cannot perform in Parliament. His absences are legendary.

On a day when apparently the Opposition was all charged up and ready to take on the Government on so many issues, its members failed to fire. The Christchurch Press stated this morning: “Opposition squanders embarrassment of riches”. Although I would dispute the underlying assumption, I say that the promised fireworks were a fizzer. When those members cannot win at question time, we get ridiculous points of order instead. It is absolutely pathetic.

There are several stages in the grieving process, and the stage of disbelief is where the National members are up to in that process at the moment. Anger is coming, and there is only one person they will direct the anger to: Don Brash. That is why he is the caretaker Leader of the Opposition.

The Rt Hon Helen Clark has done what no National Party supporter ever thought would be possible. She has put together a third-term, Labour-led Government because she understands MMP, because she is a great Prime Minister, and because she believes in building a strong and an inclusive society—she does not believe in driving wedges between people. The National Party has done exactly what it thought would never be possible: Don Brash has led his party to an historic third-term loss. The National Party has been punished for its divisive campaign, but it is clear that it has learnt nothing.

I will start by responding to that member’s assertion about who paid for the National Party billboards by saying that it was not the Post Primary Teachers Association, it was not the engineers union, and it was not actually the Prime Minister’s office using taxpayers’ funds—something that the Labour Party did to fund just about every part of its campaign. If we go back through history we find that a number of political leaders have led massive campaigns that not long after those campaigns got under way they regretted ever having started. One that springs to mind would be John Major’s back-to-basics morality campaign. He thought it was a great idea, he fitted the charge, and within months I think he had five Ministers resign—because they were caught in women’s clothing or doing all sorts of things—and eight back-benchers.

Another campaign that springs to mind is the campaign Helen Clark waged before the 1999 election. That was to bring back a new standard in government. The quotes are unbelievable; I have them here. Here we go—here is part of the campaign speech in Taranaki - King Country: “We will restore public accountability, openness, and honesty.”, said Helen Clark. That is what she said. Here is another statement she made in May 1999 in a speech to the Labour Party congress: “I want honesty in politics. I want politicians to say what they mean, and mean what they say.”

Oh, it gets better. There are better quotations than those; there is so much material that I wish my speech were for an hour, not 5 minutes. She put in one speech the definition of the word “responsible”. Let us take Helen Clark’s definition, not the dictionary’s. She was speaking at St Andrews on The Terrace at a winter lecture series, and she said: “Responsible—I interpret as being morally accountable for one’s actions.” Now, I raise all that as background, and there are about 20 more quotes from the now Prime Minister about the new standards she would bring when Labour was in Government.

What has happened since then? Let me give members some names, and then they can work out what the new standard was—Dover Samuels, Marian Hobbs, Phillida Bunkle, Ruth Dyson, John Tamihere, and the last of this great list of luminaries, David Benson-Pope. But there is a difference. In the case of every other one of those members whose names I read, they were dealt to—sometimes when there were only “accusations swirling around”. Of Dover Samuels, Helen Clark said that he would not be able to fulfil his duties as a Minister, because there were allegations, controversy, and public debate swirling around him. So she fired him. It turned out that the allegations were not true.

Then we had Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle as the double. Both got the sack because they somehow were rorting their expense claims about where they lived. It was not proven; it was just an accusation. It went on. Lianne Dalziel was sacked for telling lies. John Tamihere got the sack for some accusations about what he might have done at the Waipareira Trust, and it did not turn out to be the case. But then we get to “Mr Tennis Ball”, and what happens to him? Nothing—absolutely nothing! I think the best I can give members is the result of a Stuff poll. Members should listen to the question: “Has David Benson-Pope further tarnished his image by trying to prevent parts of a police report on bullying allegations against him from being released?”. The result was that 84.3 percent of people who responded said yes—yes, he had.

So it is not just the National Party that is attacking Mr Benson-Pope. It is not just a whole swag of editorials, which I have here, from right across the country. My colleague Judith Collins quoted from the Christchurch Press, but there are lots of other examples in papers, from the Taranaki Daily News right down to the Otago Daily Times, from the New Zealand Herald, and so on. But here is some good stuff out of the Christchurch Press editorial. Members should listen to this: “Despite all this, Helen Clark and her colleagues have decided to brazen it out. A large part of their motivation will be a desire not to give the Opposition the satisfaction of a Cabinet-level scalp.” Well, how much honesty, integrity, and decency is there in politics when the motivation is not to let the Opposition score a point when it is sitting there blatantly in front of it?

But it gets better: “Public opinion on the original matter is, in any event, ambivalent.”—that is with regard to the tennis ball incident. I actually think that had David Benson-Pope stood up on the day and said: “Look, it is possible back then that I might have done that. Teaching was different then, and who knows what happened?”, it would have been all over. The paper then says: “But to excuse Benson-Pope’s performance is to set the standards of behaviour for Cabinet Ministers at an abysmally low level.” And that is what this House is now facing—a set of standards that were supposed to be the highest, but are the lowest they have ever been.

The only thing that member said that was relevant and that could be measured against his own performance was “an abysmally low level”. If he wants to quote from documents, I will quote one back to him. After all, it was Maurice Williamson, that bastion of loyalty, who showed that loyalty to his National Party leader.

I will quote from an email by Peter Keenan, given to me by a very reliable source. It is an email to Don Brash, and says: “We are probably sitting on our base support level of 25 percent, in spite of a messy deputy leadership issue and now the Maurice Williamson issue. Actually, I will make a brief comment on that. Williamson did behave outrageously, deserved to be sidelined, and should only be allowed back in gradually. A delayed re-entry seems to be appropriate, starting at the back bench and working back from there.”

💬 Hon Member: That’s what happened.

No, no. Here’s the best bit, the advice of Mr Keenan to Dr Brash: “Remember what he”—that is, Maurice Williamson—“did to English others could do to you one day, but enough of that.”

What we have seen in the National Party, of course, not 2 months out from an election, is a bunch of whingeing, whining individuals in this House who for 6 years have proposed no policy, or very little, and who still cannot come to terms with the fact that they lost the election. Their election tactic was very interesting. It went like this: if they have no policy, or if the people reject their policy, or if they cannot persuade them, then they will try to con them. And if that does not work, they will try to bribe them with policies, and if that does not work they will break the rules. They will be deceitful, and they will break the law. We saw, in the paper, what has been divulged—$100,000 of overspending.

But there is more than that. Let us look at the Exclusive Brethren issue. I say to Mr Williamson, who referred to the trade union movement, that I simply rebut his point with this: for every billboard, for every feature article, for every newspaper page that was taken out by the union movement and others, they, unlike the Exclusive Brethren, put their names to it. They declared their support. [Interruption] It is a bit like that member, Tau Henare, who declared his support for, I think, four political parties: Mana Motuhake, New Zealand First, Mauri Pacific, and now he says he is a National Party Tory. I say he always was a born-to-rule National Party Tory, and he has found his roots. He has sold out every supporter in the four political parties he represented.

I say that, unlike the Brethren, the trade union movement nailed its colours to the mast. We knew about it, the country knew about it, and the National Party knew about it, but, of course, no one knew about the slimy, secret deal that had been done with the National Party, and a group of people—many of whom are constituents in my electorate. I say this in seriousness to those Exclusive Brethren who may be listening. I ask them to reflect on their religious beliefs, and on the religious belief of honesty. I ask them to reflect very carefully on their actions, after years of telling politicians, including myself, that they do not involve themselves in politics—and that is an honourable position to have—that they do not back political parties—and that is an honourable position to have—and that they hold dearly their religious beliefs. I respect them for that, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot then leap into bed with the Devil and pretend they never did. And for them to show their face in the National Party and front up as holier-than-thou—excuse the pun—I think, is a bit rich. Front up! [Interruption] I ask Tau Henare and Gerry Brownlee to stand up in this House and do what their leader could not do—tell us exactly what happened.

They could not bribe the people in the end, because the people are too smart. They could not con the people in the end, because the people are too smart. So they broke the rules, they broke the law, but thank goodness, the one thing we can always count on from good fair-minded Kiwis is that they do not like to be conned. As the nameless pamphlets came through the boxes in the electorates and as the scales fell from the eyes of the Kiwi public when the scheme was revealed, they reacted to that. So I say to the Exclusive Brethren: “Reflect. I respect your views, but reflect.” I say to the National Party members that they should get off their hind legs and front up.

If I were a media tycoon who owned newspapers or other media outlets in this country, I would be wanting to know what on earth my money was being spent on. Journalism is a paid profession. Those people actually receive remuneration for what they do, and that is quite staggering. The question is: are they paid to write fiction or fact? Well, I believe they are supposed to write about facts, but what we are seeing in this country of late is the worst kind of fiction. It is often vindictive, lying, erroneous, deceitful, baseless, and devoid of any fact. One wonders if those people are in fact closet conspiracy-fantasy writers trying to manufacture some sort of pet blockbuster, and if they would like to call their work of fiction The Clowns Who Tried to Bring Peters Down.

Let me say that that is not a new story. Some journalists have been writing those chapters in that book for years. But I have a new story for them to tell, and it is called Telling the Truth. In my view, most of those journalists would not know the truth if it slapped them in the face, and I will give them a few examples today of how they have engaged in deception. I take, as an example, the New Zealand Herald article this morning alleging that I as the Minister of Foreign Affairs was left out of a dinner. It is totally false and the writer knew it, because the paper called my office. My counterpart was not here. That is right—the Foreign Minister for Turkey did not come on that trip. Many other Ministers did, and their counterparts met at the dinner. I had three other appointments; I was not left out. I covered all the issues in the Cabinet meeting that I did attend, and they had a photograph to prove it, but the journalist still wrote it and never seems to think there is anything wrong in that practice.

We have a writer who said I travelled first class. I told him that that was a lie. He has never apologised for it. We had someone—and this someone is sitting up in the press gallery right now, from the Dominion Post—who tried to make out that I was somehow erroneously seeing the Minister of Defence in Britain. Now, for 165 years we have been seeing the Minister of Defence in Britain, and it happened to be that Phil Goff had it organised, all pre-planned, when he was the Minister of Defence to do exactly what I was doing, but that did not catch the journalist by any surprise, at all. He thought there was something erroneous in that, something worth making mention of—when it is total trash.

But, worst of all, we had a person who wrote for the New Zealand Herald named Fran O’Sullivan, who reported a meeting between myself and Condoleezza Rice. She was told that the four witnesses, myself included, thought it was a load of inventive bovine scatology, but she still stands by her words and so do the darned editorial writers for the New Zealand Herald. They are a disgrace to journalism. Fran O’Sullivan was told that none of the things she reported in fact took place. Do members know what she said to me? She said: “I have my sources.” What sort of arrogance is that! “I have my sources.”, she said. Let me just say that what journalists wrote about Phil Goff over in the meeting in Korea was absolutely and totally false. They knew it, they were told it, but nevertheless they kept on writing it. And they go on interviewing each other with one tissue of lies after the other. Let me tell the New Zealand Herald writers and other journalists: “If you think I’m going to go away because of your erroneous lies, you are making one big mistake.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Sue them.

Yeah, I will sue them. Unlike some members here, I back up what I say. I have already got two defamation writs out. One is against Television New Zealand and one is against Radio New Zealand. Unlike those members over here—all talk—I back up what I say.

I want to make it very clear that one European Green MP in all those Parliaments, having been contacted by the New Zealand brotherhood, asked Helen Clark,—

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has just referred to the brotherhood. He should know that four out of six of the Green MPs are women. I think that that is an erroneous reference.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he made no disparaging remark about another party in this House, so that was not a point of order.

In all those Parliaments throughout all of Europe, one MP asked the question—having been jacked up from back home—and what did the paper say? It said that Peters was in trouble in Europe. That is a disgrace—a total disgrace. When I said it was a matter of treason, I meant that someone was offshore, lying about what was happening in our country and capable of harming our relations with other countries. It is what I saw when a journalist from this country approached the Foreign Minster for Thailand and tried to raise a whole lot of issues about Winston Peters’ past and Asian immigration. The fact is, of course, that Thailand has the same policy as I have—only it is a hundred times more strict. But that journalist was not there to find out about avian flu, pandemics, Third World debt, or matters of development and cooperation. No—journalists went over there purely to make mischief. My invitation to them is this: stay home! I will deal with the foreign media, and I will get a fair chance then.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a point of misrepresentation. Mr Peters just said then that there was some jack-up in relation to the Green MP in Europe he referred to. There is no Green MP here who even knew that this discussion was taking place at the European Parliament.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no—

Mr Peters should actually read the papers to find out the situation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Locke, you were able to get that point away, but it was not a point of order.

I want to start by quoting the right honourable gentleman who has just resumed his seat, who is now our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He backs up what he says. He said, in Rotorua, that he would not take the baubles of power. Oh, yes, we all believe Mr Peters! [Interruption] He says: “Look who’s talking!”. Well, at least we stuck around.

At least we carried out every little bit of the contract we had with the then National Government. We did not get peed off because a change of leadership brought a woman into power. Mr Peters spat the dummy because he did not like working under women. He did not like working under a very, very strong Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, and, just as we have seen in the House today, he spat the dummy.

Mr Peters spent 5 minutes having a go at our free, democratic press. We may not agree with them, but we should defend their right to report on things, and they have done a wonderful job pointing out the scurrilous behaviour that that Minister has been up to.

I turn now to David Benson-Pope and to Phil Goff’s comments about the party of self-abuse. I would rather be a self-abuser than use my position as a teacher to abuse a young person by forcing a tennis ball into the mouth of a young person who could not defend himself. Shame on that Minister! But he also went on to talk about it. He is one of the 19 people who cannot remember, but he denies it ever happened. How the hell can he deny something ever happening when he cannot remember it ever happening?

It has to be one the funniest things that one of the speakers today was Lianne Dalziel. I wonder how she feels about being sacked for lying. She lied and she got the sack. She took her punishment. But now another Minister has done basically the same thing and, purely and simply because of a quirk of the Standing Orders, the House, or the Speaker, cannot nail him, even though every member of this House knows damn well that he should be gone.

In the words of Trevor Mallard, David Benson-Pope should go from this House. I remember that is what Mr Mallard said about somebody who paid for a pair of underpants. Well, goodness gracious me, the underpants are on the other backside now. David Benson-Pope should leave this House. He should go, because he is the abuser. Every time there is a Cabinet meeting or a caucus meeting, every one of those Labour members will be sitting with, and be an accomplice of, an abuser, and everybody knows it.

But something that really rankles with me is that in the “Peters-Clark” Government, we have seen those New Zealand First members, whom I actually thought had a bit of integrity—I always thought that the principles of Zealand First had a bit of integrity—

💬 Darren Hughes: Why did you walk out then?

Because it became the party of self-interest, and now in 2005 it has turned out to be the party of baubles. There is even a new game coming out prior to Christmas called “Pocket Baubles”. That is all they have.

Tahi, rua, toru, whā—four parties. It is far, far too many.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First, Mauri Pacific, National—three.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I beg to differ with the member. I remember seeing a hitchhiker wandering the lonely roads of the Bay of Islands, a distant relation lost in the Tai Tokerau, looking for a ride to the meetings called by that esteemed kaumātua of both of ours, Matiu Rata. Tahi, rua, toru, whā—it is far too many. That reflects the bizarre situation my whanaunga finds himself in, which is under the cloak of hypocrisy, which we saw Mr Brownlee demonstrate with total accuracy—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I want to raise it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I heard it and I am entitled to make the ruling. The member shall not use that word in respect of any member or group in this House. He will please withdraw it.

I withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think he should also apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I made a determination that I wanted a withdrawal and that is where it rests.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he could talk about his two jobs and how he is enjoying double-dipping on his salary.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Let us talk about the brave Opposition leaders who wander up to Maniapoto country, go inside for a hongi, but then walk outside and try to talk tough and say they will put the Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in a hāngī. They wandered up there, tried to be staunch, tried to push the mission of accountability, but were caught off guard, then wandered out on to the public estate and talked tough. Fortunately the voters, irrespective of their ethnic hue, saw through that.

Another thing the voters have seen through is that those members ran a campaign hounding the Māori personality, stigmatising and demonising, but the first thing they offered the Māori Party was to say: “We will do the Watusi with you over the takutai moana, over the seabed and foreshore.” What on earth would possess our friends from the Māori Party to think for a moment that they could—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just trying to help the House. The member seems to be too close to the microphone and the sound is quite distorted for a number of our colleagues.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that technical issue, Mr Henare.

Those members, having decided that they wanted no bar of a takutai moana, could not wait for the opportunity to put together a deal that, firstly, demeaned and destroyed the expectations that our Māori voters had of the Māori Party, and caused a whole host of people to accurately identify that they would say anything at any time to capture an opportunity to form a Government, which will definitely elude them.

What did that show? It showed how far National’s leadership had departed from Doug Kidd, Doug Graham, and Jim Bolger, who knew that the way forward was to, firstly treat people with respect, and, secondly, to observe and uphold the Treaty. But, no, under the new recipe all we saw was destructiveness and a convenient denunciation of the Treaty. Deep down they knew that their pedigree was to be balanced, but the pursuit and zeal for power caused them to abandon that.

Bill English has actually identified that by courting and, hopefully, embracing the brown vote, his party will have an opportunity to come on to this side of the House. Well, rest assured, National will need more than a “Tau” and a couple of brown baits to pull that off. I remind my whanaunga Tau Henare that I observed with great interest the time that he parted company with our mātāmua Winston Peters. I remember, because we go back quite some time, that he said he would never serve with Jenny Shipley, Mr Birch, or Mr Bolger, but, hello, he now lies in the bed that they once made. What does that tell us about not so much his character but the selective memory of the individual?

In addition to that, it has come to our attention that in the pursuit of wanting to have it both ways with the Māori vote, National members have decided to embark on a policy of pretending to be friendly to Rongo Wētere, but being anti the wānanga. They cannot have it both ways. The reality is that the wānanga will survive, and the reality is that the wānanga is larger than one, two, three, four, five particular people. If they chose not to follow the policies and procedures, then that is no reason why the wānanga should be either destroyed or brought down. Those people are in regular contact. They regularly share information and avoid responsibility.

Today in the House, during question time, Mrs Judith Collins demonstrated the sheer deceit of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, David Benson-Pope. She exposed how he has systematically manoeuvred to change his story, which is involved in this case. She also laid before the House the series of events, and the Minister’s involvement in the deceitful leaking of the police report associated with the David Benson-Pope case.

I think that what Mrs Collins did is a service to the nation and a service to the people of this House. She laid out the case against David Benson-Pope and displayed to the nation the deceit that he bears, sitting on the opposite side of the House. The Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, who is also from Dunedin, is also reported to be subject to a police investigation. It involves his alleged assault against a woman protestor during the election. [Interruption] Well, it was reported in the paper today. Now we have a situation where Mr Benson-Pope has come into this House over the last two days, and, under questioning from Mrs Collins, has changed his story.

Let us just go through exactly what Mr Benson-Pope said. When initially asked about the tennis ball allegations, he replied: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.” He further repeated: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.” I was in the House that day, and I must say that the impression was emphatic. It was a denial. There was no if, there was no but, and there was no maybe. It was an emphatic denial of the case. As we know, the history has flowed and the case has been subject to a police investigation. We know that in that police investigation a senior and experienced police officer said that there were nine people who confirmed that the incident happened, or an incident of that sort, and that they were credible witnesses who could be relied upon in a court of law. They said there was a prima facie case that the Minister committed those offences of child abuse.

The police report actually means that they did not believe David Benson-Pope, because, if they did, they would not have said that the nine other witnesses were credible and could be relied upon. So that is the conclusion of the police case. Because they thought the case was old, and because they thought there would be an undue and harsh focus due to the Minister’s position, they decided not to proceed. They did not decide not to proceed because they thought they would lose in a court of law; they did not decide not to proceed because there was no foundation; it was because they thought that the case was old, and that the effect on the Minister would be disproportionate.

But under questioning from Judith Collins during question time yesterday, Mr Benson-Pope changed his story. This is what he said: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events, and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Well, that is just not true. He did not say that from the outset. From the outset he was emphatic: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.” It was not a case of: “Look, it’s 23 years ago, I can’t remember. I cannot believe that I would do such a thing and I refute it.” There was no sort of conditionality. It was absolutely clear: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.

Then, under questioning from the National Opposition yesterday, the story changed to: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events, and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Look at the words: “said from the outset”, “no recollection”, “do not believe”, “alleged”, and “happened”. I do not think those words would have been written by the Minister. They would have been written by a lawyer, because they are very clear, they are very detailed, and it is very, very clear that they conflict with the earlier comments. So Mrs Collins has outlined the fact that we have a Minister who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.

That was Tony Ryall, whose speech was driven by a deep-seated bitterness because of having to spend 9 years in Opposition as a result of three elections. He thinks that the way back for the National Party is through character assassinations. My message to Mr Ryall is that he should look at Rodney Hide, who has spent a number of years here making character assassinations, and at the state of the ACT party in this Parliament. ACT is at 1.5 percent in the polls, and falling. So my message to Mr Ryall is that he should stop being bitter and making character assassinations, and start concentrating on policies and things that New Zealanders want to hear about. That is my advice to him.

If we want to use the tennis analogy, which is very popular at the moment, then in the games between Labour and National the score is three sets to love. National has now lost three elections in a row. One could say it was understandable that it lost the first of the three, because by that stage it was tired and worn out. Basically, it had given it away. [Interruption] Yes, it was understandable. I have talked to a number of people in the National Opposition who said that they were basically quite relieved to lose in 1999, because they could flag it away and not have to worry any more about Cabinet papers. As for the second time National lost, well, that is just getting plain old careless. To lose two elections in a row is not understandable; it is just careless. But to lose a third time, in 2005, is actually unforgivable for a lot of the members who are in the back benches now. Of course, Don Brash said: “Well, I expect to go, because leaders who lose shouldn’t be given a second chance.” But he is back there, and that is why he is so equivocal about the leadership. Members opposite can smell the blood, because they know that he will not be around for too long. They know that the numbers are working. We know about the closed doors and the private meetings. Gerry Brownlee sits there quietly. He sees the opportunity coming. He will be one of those who are behind the closed doors. The thing about Don Brash is that he must go, and he will go; it is now just a matter of time.

One of the things that happened to the National Party this week was that it was taken off to the Electoral Commission by the police because of breaking election rules. The National Party said that it was just a simple mistake: “Was it GST inclusive, or GST exclusive? It was just a little mistake.” This was from the former Governor of the Reserve Bank. GST inclusive and GST exclusive are important issues when it comes down to the national economy—and Don Brash wants to be the Prime Minister! “What is a bit of GST between friends?”, asks Don Brash. “Who cares about it; it doesn’t really matter—GST inclusive, GST exclusive.” This cannot be the attitude of a person who wants to be the Prime Minister. Cabinets spend a lot of time on Budgets, and when they do they look carefully at GST inclusive and GST exclusive. It is not simply a mistake; it is just absolute incompetence, and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition is known for that.

Then there was the Exclusive Brethren’s association with that. How does the Exclusive Brethren Church, whose members do not take part in elections, read newspapers, watch TV, or use the Internet, know about the detail of Labour’s health policy? That is what I want to know. Either the leaders of that church are not being straight with the general rank and file or their church is telling porkies. It cannot be both; it has to be one or the other. I say that that church has been found out. It has betrayed ordinary God-fearing New Zealanders by trying to deceive them, and its members need to sit down and think about what they have done.

National does not deserve to be in Government. It actually does not really deserve to be in Opposition. That is how hopeless its members are. They do not deserve to be in Opposition. As a result of what we have seen this week, the Press headline is: “Opposition squanders embarrassment of riches”, and that newspaper is right.

I begin this afternoon by offering my condolences to the New Zealand First Party. I have never seen a more pathetic effort in this House in all the 9 years that I have been here. The Hon Winston Peters stood up and, in a most Uriah Heep - like way, began to justify his position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. That tells me that he knows that he has set himself up as a joke and that his days as Minister in that portfolio are not going to be marked with great success.

Mr Swain, the speaker who preceded me, made a suggestion that attacks this afternoon concerning the issues surrounding Mr Benson-Pope were about character assassination. They are not, because this issue has now moved to a point where the question has to be whether anything this Government says or does can be believed. My colleagues have given a very lengthy list of Ministers who have gone west for so-called indiscretions and, in some cases, for misleading the public. Here is a perfect situation of a Minister trying to manipulate the media—trying to create an impression that was untrue, and then denying it—of the Prime Minister then turning round and saying that it was a staff member who did it, and of the poor old staff member being dragged before Ministerial Services to take the rap.

We should not be surprised at the particular style of this exercise. Members will remember that shortly after the Prime Minister’s motorcade was sprung for speeding at 160-odd kilometres an hour across the Canterbury plains—a speeding motorcade that the Prime Minister, although she was sitting in the back seat of one of the cars, said she did not notice—one of her press secretaries went to a media outlet, and tried to put across the story that the drivers had to speed because there were death threats against the Prime Minister. When the media outlet decided to check that out, it discovered that the particular nutter who had made that threat had been arrested many hours before the convoy left Geraldine, and that there was no need to speed for that reason. But that account is what Helen Clark’s office tried to put across. That is what David Lewis, the press secretary, tried to get out there.

Was David Lewis punished for that?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Was he?

No, he was promoted. For doing the Prime Minister’s bidding, he was promoted to become her illustrious speech-writer and the person who constructed the words that she used throughout the last campaign. What is more, it is rumoured that that fellow, who did the Prime Minister’s bidding in lying to the media, will become the next senior press secretary on the ninth floor, as the replacement for the outgoing Mike Munro.

So there is an interesting situation here. One press secretary, who goes off and lies on behalf of the Prime Minister to the media, is promoted, but another press secretary, told by Mr Benson-Pope to put this spin out all over the place, ends up getting hung out to dry. I think that Mr Coleman needs to take some advice from someone like David Lewis, in order to work out how to get on the better side of the Prime Minister and not have to take the rap for Mr Benson-Pope.

Much has been said this afternoon by Labour members about how good they are, how clever they are, and how fantastic they are. The reality, of course, is that they are members of a party that is in extreme disarray. The party is suffering extreme disunity and severe embarrassment, as was witnessed during question No. 11 today when the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Government poodle, Government lapdog, would-be Minister of Foreign Affairs, and recipient of all sorts of emails, embarrassed it to bits.

Last week Meadow Fresh ended the supply of milk in glass and closed the last plant in the country capable of producing that. It was a decision opposed by a number of councils, businesses, community organisations, and individuals, yet within the present economic framework it was almost inevitable. Closing the bottling plant in Christchurch will cut costs and boost profits by externalising waste disposal costs on to local communities. And why, in one sense, should Meadow Fresh not do that? Every other milk producer did it years ago.

The decision contravenes the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 and its objective of reducing packaging waste, but that is a voluntary accord and is not intended to disrupt business. That is precisely the problem. This Government, like Governments in the past, is protecting corporate subsidies by failing to introduce legislation that makes businesses pay their way. That distorts the market and puts businesses that have an ecological ethic at an unfair disadvantage. Don Brash is trying to protect the same corporate subsidy with his campaign to axe the future by smothering the carbon tax. Let taxpayers pay the clean-up tab for big business, he says. Let our young people and our environment carry the cost of the fossil fuels that we burn today. Forcing local bodies to pick up the tab for the collection, compaction, and disposal of single-use milk containers is nothing more than a corporate rort. Milk producers, like so many others, are forcing local communities to subsidise their shareholders.

The cost to the community is not just economic but has significant environmental and social impacts, as well. The loss of the glass milk bottle almost certainly means the loss of the home delivery service. When glass milk bottles were taken out of circulation in the North Island, home delivery ceased in most places. Once loyalty to glass bottles was gone, consumers bought milk at the supermarket. Those with limited mobility, such as the elderly and those with disabilities, who depended on the service, simply did not represent a sufficient market to maintain the service. My conversations with vendors have indicated that despite the assurance by Meadow Fresh that it would support vendors, the company’s treatment of them has, in fact, been a source of considerable ill feeling. The decision by Meadow Fresh to require bulk purchasing for other non-milk products has further undermined the viability of those independent operators.

Meadow Fresh has claimed an environmental benefit from single-use Tetra Paks. It says that glass is heavy to transport around the South Island and that washing involves lots of caustic soda, water, and energy. But there is, of course, a simple reply. The caustic solution is reused many times. In addition, it can be chemically neutralised in a simple process and be returned back into the environment. In comparison, Tetra Paks are imported from Scandinavia. Trees For Canterbury reuses about 30 percent of the Tetra Paks coming through Christchurch, but it cannot handle all the cartons now, never mind another 25,000 as a result of axing glass bottles. Tetra Paks cannot be recycled in New Zealand at all; they must be re-exported to Australia and then to Asia. The fusing of plastic tops on to card bases makes them even more difficult to recycle, and not cost-effective for most operations.

Last week I met with Ross Townshend, the operations manager of Rank Group, to discuss these matters. Meadow Fresh has to make business decisions within the prevailing economic framework, and, in his view, the business case is compelling. That is why I say to this House that we need to change the framework and legislate for extended producer responsibility.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.