General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Labour-led Government was elected last year for a third term after an election campaign that was distinctive in two ways. Firstly, Labour beat National, notwithstanding the fact that National was richly and secretly funded by a clandestine group, the Exclusive Brethren. It is an extremist religious group that Don Brash denied was funding National, but it was later revealed that the group put $1.5 million into that party. I want to know right now from the National Party what it promised this extremist group in order to get that sort of money. National was supported also, of course, by another extremist group, the Business Roundtable. We have a clear idea of what National promised the Business Roundtable in order to get funding and policy support from it.

The second distinctive factor of that campaign was the fact that National offered the biggest electoral bribe in this country’s history in the form of $9.5 billion worth of tax cuts. It was the biggest and most unsuccessful electoral bribe in this country. When National Party members came into this House and said they wanted tax cuts in the Budget, they ignored the message clearly given by the electorate that the electorate—the people of New Zealand and the parties that make up the majority in this Parliament—prioritised investment in infrastructure and social spending over the tax cuts that were the alternative.

Everybody in this House would acknowledge that Labour has delivered socially. It has put families first by giving, through the Working for Families package, tax relief to those people who need it most. That would be at risk if National introduced its tax cuts. Labour has restored the position of superannuitants, to whom the National Party dishonestly promised things in the 1990s and failed to deliver. National delivered the opposite—members know it and they cannot deny it. Labour has invested strongly in health—there has been a 77 percent increase in expenditure on health. That would be at risk if the National Party provided tax cuts for wealthy friends. Labour has delivered in education. It has delivered progressive initiatives such as the paid parental leave provision and 4 weeks’ minimum annual holiday, which the National Party promised to cut at one stage, then not to cut—but if it ever had the chance, working New Zealanders know exactly what it would do.

Labour has also decisively reversed the rundown in infrastructure that occurred under the National Government in the 1990s. There has been a sixfold increase in transmission lines maintenance in this country. That did not happen in the 1990s, and we have seen the consequences of that. There has been a $13.4 billion investment in transport—that is something the National Party talked about but failed to deliver to Aucklanders, who have to put up with traffic congestion as a result. Labour has made investment in the defence forces; the defence forces were sadly run down by the cold war warriors in the National Party. This Labour Government has put $3.3 billion into new equipment that was badly needed, and $4.4 billion into personnel.

Where the electorate also made the distinction between the two parties was in terms of the quality of leadership. People compared the National Party with the Labour Party and saw that they did not match up. The National Party knows that and Don Brash knows that. Don Brash promised to go if he was not elected at the last election. That is just one of his election promises that he had the opportunity to deliver on but he dishonoured. He is still there, notwithstanding the fact that he is being stalked by Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, and John Key. Why is he still there, notwithstanding his failures? It is because those three members hate each other more than they despise Don Brash, and that is what keeps Don Brash—successfully, for us—in his current position.

Let us have a look at what the National Party actually believes in, because the quotes are all there. Don Brash wants to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation, New Zealand Post, the energy companies, and Kiwibank. It is no wonder he put up tax cuts and not the real agenda. New Zealanders would never have elected the National Party on that agenda.

Never in the history of this Parliament has the Opposition had so many issues to use. In fact, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never have so many people had so many issues and so little time in which to take them apart—be it the Taito Phillip Field inquiry, which was to have taken 11 days, and now, 11 months or something later, has still not come to fruition; be it allowing terrorists into the country and then, after many months, saying that at least we found them; be it the energy crisis that Auckland faced on Monday; or be it Television New Zealand’s (TVNZ’s) absolutely wonderful clip about the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, a responsibility that most people in her electorate did not even know she had.

But I say to this House that the best of the lot—because it is possible to pick only one in 5 minutes—was the Michael Cullen interview with Guyon Espiner. I say to those members who have not seen the interview that they should go on the web. It is still on the TVNZ website; it is there for playing. Members of this House will know that politicians, when they are off the record, will normally be far more candid and more honest than when they are on the record, because one has to be reasonably circumspect when one is on the record. That does not apply to Winston Peters, who is neither at any time. Regardless of that, the Minister of Finance was unaware that the camera was rolling.

Members should listen to what he said; it is wonderful. He said—and I have to get this right, because there are some breaks and pauses here—“And the Dominion Post leads with the story ‘$8.5 billion surplus and still no tax cuts’. So? What’s the connection?”. Well, one could ask anybody that. Has anybody ever realised what having a surplus means? It means that one is taking money from the people over and above what one is spending. People in their households know that if they have $100,000 and they spend $75,000 in the year on running the place, they have a $25,000 surplus. That is what they have. But Michael Cullen says: “So? What’s the connection?”. I want to ask Mr Peters something, because he seems to be going on about not understanding. I ask him this.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Lassie.

One cannot call him Lassie; that is not parliamentary. I ask Mr Peters what size the surplus has to get to in order to be—

💬 Craig Foss: Supersize me.

—a super-sized, upsized surplus. What if it was $15 billion? Would Dr Cullen still say: “So? What’s the connection?”. That is right. Members should work with me on this one. What if it was a $20 billion surplus? What would Dr Cullen say?

💬 Hon Members: “So? What’s the connection?”

That is what Dr Cullen said on TVNZ, and I sat there thinking I could not believe he had said that. I cannot believe that Dr Cullen does not know that the general public out there knows that if the Government is running deficits, it is very hard to give tax cuts—I understand that—but that when a Government is running surpluses, that is when the time comes to do so.

Dr Cullen tries to blur the margins by saying there is not really a surplus, because the Government is spending a lot of the $8.5 billion on capital expenditure. Well, I say to people again that they should take the household example. If someone has $100,000 of income and $75,000 of expenditure, $25,000 is left, and if that $25,000 is used to buy some investments, can that person now say he or she does not have a surplus? Of course someone cannot say that, because that person has bought a $25,000 asset—possibly a revenue-generating asset—so, on a cash basis, yes, he or she does have a surplus. Dr Cullen is now bringing in expenditure on investments that will last for decades—expenditure on investment in a whole lot of infrastructure, and so on, with value that will last for decades—and saying it actually comes off the surplus. Members should go to the Inland Revenue Department and see whether it will let them take expenditure on their new house as an expense. Members should try to do that. Do members know what the Inland Revenue Department would say? It would say: “So? Where’s the connection?”. That is what the Inland Revenue Department would say. Members would be buying an asset that will appreciate. It has nothing to do with their income.

Dr Cullen showed his true colours. The reason he is so angry now is that he thought the interview was off the record, and he is highly embarrassed. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister wants his scalp.

I think the question the Hon Maurice Williamson needs to answer is where his vote is going in terms of the leadership of the National Party. Where is his vote going? [Interruption] It is going for Maurice! He said he is going to vote for himself. That means there are four in the ring, and I hope the member, when he puts his name up in his National caucus, gets a seconder, because if he does not, there will only be three, and that means the voting procedures will become less complex—not that they are not complex enough now.

The prisoner’s dilemma in the National Party is as follows: people who voted for the Hon Bill English when he lost the leadership the last time that party had a spill do not want to vote against Don Brash, the current leader, because if they do that, John Key will win. One thing we know about Bill English’s supporters is that they do not like Dr Don Brash but they like John Key even less. That is the prisoner’s dilemma. So those members are supporting the current leader of the National Party, the very same person who defeated the Hon Bill English by accident—do members recall that it was by accident? Bill English’s supporters are supporting Don Brash now because they do not like John Key, at all.

The National Party went into the last election saying it was in favour of policies for the mainstream, but it funded its campaign by use of Exclusive Brethren money, which is the antithesis of mainstream. Shadowy white men who do not vote fronted up with more than a million bucks—[Interruption]—National members do not like it—and the National Party had the gall to say it was representing the mainstream.

The National Party put $11 billion on the table. There has never been a bigger bribe in New Zealand’s history—not ever; not even Muldoon went near that. The National Party put $11 billion on the table, and its members took their laptops around the country to show individual New Zealanders how rich they would become. They bribed, they deceived by saying they were mainstream, and they lost. They bribed, deceived, and lost—and that is the lesson. New Zealanders are not stupid. They looked and they decided that the country would not be able to afford the $11 billion.

But what has happened since? In every question time since the election, the National Party has required the Government to spend more money—not that National would have had a chance to spend it if it had won the election, because it would all have gone on its big bribe. Even in today’s question time, the National Party said it wanted more money to be spent. But National members went to the electorate only 9 months ago with $11 billion worth of bribery, and they lost.

I am very, very pleased that this Government is still here, because it is delivering on Working for Families and it is delivering on transport. Do members know that $750 million extra went into the health sector a few weeks ago? If the National Party had been in Government, it would have spent the extra $750 million that Labour has spent on the health sector across the entire Government vote. I do not know how much the health sector would have got. It would have got little or nothing. It might have had a decrease, yet National members send letters to Ministers all around the place that say they want more money to be spent. Those members question the Government every question time, demanding that more money be spent. They have an attitude to politics that is best summed up by a word beginning with “h” that is not able to be used in this House. That is the situation with the National Party.

What we do not know, of course, is how secret its secret agenda is these days. Does Dr Brash still say: “Frankly, I don’t care who runs the schools.”? Does Dr Brash still say: “I would have done what President Bush did in Iraq.”, or that the nuclear-free legislation would be “gone by lunchtime”?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just remind members to look at Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1. Those rulings relate to members not being able to move seats in order to facilitate their making interjections. I just caution members about that. Secondly, Mr Hodgson made a hard-hitting speech, so some interjections could have been expected, but not so many as to drown out the member. The Chair will not allow a member to be drowned out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume, in that regard, that you will be asking Steve Chadwick, Miss Yates, Miss Street, and Miss Mackey to all go back to their seats, so that we do not have to put up with the paint-stripping performance we heard throughout that speech.

If National had been able to form a Government after the last election, what would we have had? We would have had Don Brash as the Prime Minister. He was the leader of the National Party only because the secret funders—the insider traders—said: “No Brash; no cash”. Gerry Brownlee—[Interruption]

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. One is to do with the outrageous comments being made by the Deputy Leader of the House. The second point of order is that usually the debates in this House go from side to side. I never thought the Opposition would be so weak so early in the term that we would have two Labour speakers speaking one after the other. I want to know whether that is the kind of form we can expect —in which event we will take the second speaking slot on this side of House, because as least there is somebody talking common sense in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will just make a point of observation. Members can never allege that another member has lied. That is absolutely out of order. If members do not like what a member says, they can therefore speak in the debate. The matter can also be referred to Madam Speaker as a breach of privilege. All members in this House are honourable members. Their words are unreservedly accepted, and all members will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings.

Gerry Brownlee would have been the Deputy Prime Minister. Bill English would have been the Minister of Education and Associate Minister of Finance. Members might remember that Bill English was a Treasury official when it did all the work that was done behind the scenes in the 1980s and 1990s.

John Key would have been the Minister of Finance. Everyone in this House should see a movie called Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, then consider whether a money market trader, that is, a gambler—a good one, but a gambler nevertheless—is the sort of person we want managing our finances in New Zealand.

The next National member is Nick Smith, who would have been responsible for the environment and the Resource Management Act. We would have had unfettered development. If he were responsible for energy, he would be like Max Bradford on P. In respect of building and construction, I ask members to remember the 1991 Building Act. Members might also remember that the funding of standards changed dramatically in the middle of the 1990s. There was no interest from the sector, and no standard. No standard was ever given for monolithic cladding systems, and that is why we had leaky buildings.

Tony Ryall would have been running our health system. Hospitals would have been run as businesses, with cash registers at the doors. There would have been a loss of institutional knowledge—like we had in the 1990s—as good people left. Intuitive senior nurses and democratically elected boards would have been sacked. Why would we ever let Tony Ryall run our health system? As for Judith Collins, I was told that she joined a women’s organisation just before the election, then left it straight after the election—she was gone by lunchtime, I was told.

The National Party has two faces. I ask members to remember 1990. National delivered a mini-Budget before Christmas. That mini-Budget contained the benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act—a package designed to go together. It was designed to give the appearance of increased productivity by cutting wages and conditions of employment, and it was planned. The election was on 27 October, Parliament was sworn in in November, and the Employment Contracts Bill was introduced in December. It was written before the election. Who wrote the Employment Contracts Bill? It was not the Department of Labour, because National was in Opposition. The National Party delivers not on its public promises but on its secret, private deals and secret agenda.

The public must never forget that National has one face for the public and another face for its secret meetings with its secret funders. National received $1.2 million from the non-voting Exclusive Brethren. We know that now, but we did not know that the figure was $1.2 million before the election. Who paid for those really big billboards, and whose idea were those billboards? A member of the National Party certainly did not come up with that idea.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: How much did the unions put in?

I ask Mr Brownlee what the quid pro quo was. We know, by looking at some of the fundamentalist websites overseas, that women’s rights were in National’s sights—legislated morality in the name of family values. That is what we would have had from a National Government. I say to those new, liberal members on the National Party’s back benches that you would have been dragged into this, and some of you would have been happy to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Some of them would have been very happy to see the non-liberal approach, as we had legislated morality in the name of family values. But I know that some back-benchers would have been appalled at what National was prepared to trade, in exchange for the money of the Exclusive Brethren. Labour members understand family values better than the Opposition, because we know that family values are underpinned by a commitment to economic and social policy, and that is why Labour has the confidence of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do so in the break between one person speaking and the next, because I think it is discourteous to break up a person’s speech. However, Mr Peters does not think the same way. Mr Assistant Speaker, Mr Peters took a point of order a while ago, which you did not actually respond to, about the Opposition not taking its proper calls. I would have thought that it was clear to anybody who read the order of calls sheet for today that the No. 3 call went to the Progressive party, which Pete Hodgson took because Mr Anderton did not take it, and the No. 4 call went to the Labour Party as it was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Williamson.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I want to get this very clear. Mr Peters took the point of order even when his associate, the Hon Brian Donnelly, pushed the order of calls sheet in front of him and pointed out it was a Progressive party call then a Labour call. I saw Mr Donnelly pointing that out, but Mr Peters decided to break up Lianne Dalziel’s speech—his own coalition partner. You did not respond, and I think you had a responsibility to tell this House and Mr Peters that he had got it wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you Mr Williamson. The point is well made.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hansard will record that I raised two issues in my point of order. One was in respect of Gerry Brownlee calling somebody in this House a liar—we all heard it; he should have been ticked off in front of the House. The second issue, of course, was not as Maurice Williamson described it. When I sat down I was shown the paper, not beforehand—bad luck!

I would like to reflect on the fact that the only question the National Party is asking today—

💬 Hon Member: What’s that?

Well, it is the same question the whole country is asking: what does the Labour Government do when it has a tough month or is in a tough spot? We know what Labour members do when they are in a tough spot. The very first thing they do is send their Minister of Energy to Paris. And why do they send their Minister of Energy to Paris?

💬 Hon Member: Why?

I will tell members why. The reason is that there are hot showers in Paris, the lights are on in Paris, and the power is running in Paris—and it is not running here in New Zealand. So this Government has sent the Minister of Energy to Paris.

The second thing Government members do when they are in a tight spot is make Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs so that he will stop shooting Asians. That is what they do. That is the second thing they do when they are in a tight spot.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an outrageous comment for the member to make. Not only would it harm our international reputation if someone were to take that member seriously—which is probably highly unlikely—but the point is that he should not be making those sorts of outrageous statements. If National cannot do better than that, it should put the member down and put up somebody else who has some competence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. If it is a personal reflection, it is out of order, and if the member is taking exception under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Everyone knows that the member is the de facto Minister of Foreign Affairs. The real Minister is Phil Goff, and I apologise to that member, as well.

What else does Labour do when it gets into a tough spot and has a tough month? Well, of course, Michael Cullen goes on the managed exit list. He joins an illustrious group of people on that list. Actually, Michael Cullen is unsure of whether he will stay or go, but he joins Ann Hartley on the list. Michael Cullen and Ann Hartley are on the managed exit list, along with Jill Pettis, Dianne Yates, and Russell Fairbrother. We also know that Jim Sutton was offered the post in Ottawa but he has declined it because he believes he is so invaluable to Labour that he should stay.

So with the Minister of Energy overseas, the lights out in the South Island, and everyone having cold showers, with the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, joining Ann Hartley, Jill Pettis, Dianne Yates, Russell Fairbrother, and Jim Sutton on the managed exit list, with Marian Hobbs saying that Wellington has been shafted by Labour, and with Taito Phillip Field saying that his future is in the lap of the gods, we are in a very interesting situation, indeed.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s like Schindler’s list—it’s getting longer and longer.

It is like Schindler’s list. One Minister who is in a tough spot—and in whom I have been taking a particular interest—is the Minister of Housing. I have been chasing the Minister of Housing around the paddock for a couple of months now on the issue—

💬 Hon Member: What a ghastly thought.

It is a ghastly thought—thank goodness I never caught him. He has been telling this House through questions for oral answer, telling me through answers to formal parliamentary questions, and telling the media that the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation found out about the whistleblower’s gagging order on the same day as the Minister did—7 April.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Same day?

That is exactly the same day. Apparently, the Minister went into a lock-up, “please explain” meeting on 9 April to discuss this gagging clause, which he and the corporation were aghast about, and was told at that meeting—where attendees were locked up for several hours—that the chairman found out about the gagging order on the same day as he did. He was told that the chairman did not break the no-surprises policy—as the Prime Minister explained—but that the chairman found out on the same day as he did. Well, we discovered yesterday, after months of posing questions to the Minister and receiving denials and confirmations that the chairman found out on the same day as the Minister did, that on the eve of the Minister of Housing’s departure overseas on some junket, the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation in fact knew about that gagging order over 2 weeks before he told the Minister and over 2 weeks before this Minister told the media and this House.

The National Party needs to come clean about its real agenda for New Zealand. The only thing that National is excellent at is spin—and some of those members take a hell of a lot to spin round. But the people of New Zealand are very, very wary of a party whose history is one of cuts. Would that party have funded the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary? Not on your life! Would that party have funded the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust? Not on your life! Would that party have funded the velodrome in Southland? Not on your life! Those members would not have had a bar of that, because they would want to put the money into individual pockets. So the National Party is one that is full of cuts.

The people of New Zealand have not forgotten National’s “mother of all Budgets” in 1991.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Did this member get an invite to Phil Goff’s barbecue?

Maurice Williamson may have forgotten that, but the people have not. It was the Budget that cut benefits. After the news about that Budget came out, I was on a bus, and a woman came on to the bus and burst into tears. She said: “Look what that Government up on the hill has done. Look what it has done to the people of New Zealand. Look at the benefits it has cut and the poverty it is about to induce.” The people of New Zealand have not forgotten that, and the National Party has not changed its spots. It is still a party of cuts.

This is the National Party that brought in market rentals, with all the consequences for health and child poverty that followed. Do people remember the stories of the crowded homes, and of three families living in one house? Do people remember the families who were living in garages? Where are those stories now? They are not out there. Why have we cut meningococcal meningitis? The reason is that we have done things about raising the standard of housing in New Zealand. That party is the same National Party that cut superannuation. It is the same party, as my colleague reminded me, that introduced the Employment Contracts Act. Have those members changed?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: An excellent bill.

As Maurice Williamson has just indicated—no way! It is still the same party. Don Brash, John Key, and the bankers are leading the party instead of the farmers—Bolger, Shipley, and English. That was the old National Party, but now we have a party of bankers out there. They are people who have an economic agenda that is about feeding out the rich. People may not believe me, but they should listen to those members’ words. Dr Brash wants to succeed and take up where Ruth Richardson left off in 1991. This is his quote: “to talk of ‘the horrors of the 1990s’ is to talk cattle manure.” Dr Brash wants the 1991 job finished. Do people remember? It began with cuts, and it will continue with more cuts.

In May 2002 Dr Brash told the Dominion Post that reform that boosts work incentives by reducing benefit levels the longer someone remains out of work is desirable. He wants to slash benefits. Dr Brash talked of a lifetime limit for which an individual could gain benefits, so if the individual cannot get work, Dr Brash wants him or her to have no money. He wants people sleeping under bridges. That is the kind of world that Dr Brash wants. That is the real National Party.

The 1990s agenda is not completed. Do people remember that it was Don Brash who demoted Katherine Rich—who is a good woman, I have to say that. Why? It was because Mrs Rich objected to a section dealing with penalties for women who had more babies while on the domestic purposes benefit. That is the reality of the National Party. By contrast, what is the reality of Labour? We have the lowest unemployment rate—300,000 new jobs have been created since we have been in Government. That is something to be proud of. That says something about the health of the community and about having a united community.

The extension to the Working for Families package means we have seen people drop out of having two or three part-time jobs and settle for one-and-a-half jobs because they can afford to as a family unit. That is what Working for Families has done.

It has also made a significant investment in health. Labour has had the brilliance to move into primary health care, instead of always being the bucket at the end of the drip, dealing with tertiary care. The Government is building more homes and has removed market rentals.

National has a negative future plan for New Zealand. It is a future of cuts and despair. It is a future of raising the age of superannuation eligibility. That is what Dr Brash has talked about. National will provide a divided community. By contrast, Labour builds a community and holds it together.

Who was it who said “one law for all”? No, it was not the National Party; it was New Zealand First. But like so much that National members have stolen from us, they do not know how to practice it. On National’s breach of the law, I say that the media must get the facts straight and stop buying the myths and the spin in relation to National’s non-payment of GST on its broadcasting allocation at the last election. We have to ask ourselves a few simple questions. What does the law say? What did National do? What are the effects of National’s actions? Who is out of pocket?

If members read today’s paper, they will see that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission said yesterday that National could repay the money without a legislative change. National has some lawyer members and they know exactly what I am saying. On that basis, the answer is that National is making its current claims totally spuriously. The answer is straightforward. No matter what National members say, the law says there is a limited amount that parties can use for the purposes of broadcasting at an election, and that amount is set by the Electoral Commission. Right?

National was lucky enough in getting the amount it did. It received several times the amount that New Zealand First received, even though it did not get more than twice the vote we received. It received several times more than New Zealand First did, then it went out and spent more than that. The point is that rather than National members taking their good fortune and playing by the rules, they abused their providence and corruptly tried to grow their broadcasting expenditure even further. That is a fact.

So what did those members do? Well, they broke the law. They breached the Broadcasting Act by overspending. This is what people seem to forget. They have already been referred to the police over this matter, so why on earth is the media falling for the line that National cannot pay because the law has to be changed? That is total bovine scatology and those members know it. For Don Brash to now claim, as he did this morning, that we in New Zealand First want National to break the law shows what a totally incompetent fool he can sometimes be. There he was on Morning Report making a prize fool of himself and saying that New Zealand First is responsible for National not paying the broadcasters. What total humbug! I have to ask whether this is the first time—

💬 David Bennett: Pay your legal bills!

The member should listen, sunshine, when I say I have paid mine, so he should not tell this House a lie. Unlike the member, who has the courage of a sparrow, I face up, pay up, and take people on. The member has not heard the end of it—make no bones about that. I will have the member laughing on the other side of his face before too long—make no bones about it. He must just be patient.

I will ask this question about the matter. Was this National’s first election, as it was for the Māori Party? If the Māori Party had done this, it might have been understandable, because this was its first election. No, it was not National’s first election. It has been having outings since 1938. The law has been in force for 20 years. National knew the law but decided to circumvent it.

💬 Hon Member: Is this your last one?

No, it is not my last one. More important, the member will stay over there whilst he has that attitude. He will stay there as long as he has that arrogant attitude.

I received an email from a businessman the other day. He wrote: “I was self-employed for 11 years, and in that time, if I made one mistake, if I was one day late, I was penalised to the full, plus interest, on GST, PAYE, ACC, and income tax. The National Party did not rewrite the law for myself or my fellow taxpayers when we made mistakes.” New Zealand First members could not have put it better ourselves. That is exactly what is happening here. National overspent and it has the absolute born-to-rule arrogance to think that it will stop the whole of Parliament so National can be seen not to break the law. I am sorry, but who voted against the clean slate legislation? Who voted against Nandor’s wipe the slate clean bill when the Greens put that bill before Parliament?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name.

I mean the Green member who put up a bill about wiping the slate clean on crime. National voted it down, and now Don Brash says he wants to wipe the slate clean. There is a word for that.

💬 Hon Member: What about Harry Duynhoven?

National voted against Harry Duynhoven, as well. He was totally innocent and there was no money involved. There is a word for that and it starts with “h”. National members are super-good at this hypocrisy.

I just say to the member that using the “h” word like he has is an imputation, and members cannot get around the rules about unparliamentary language by a circumlocution.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, unless you are a soothsayer you would not know what the “h” word is. Unless you are clairvoyant or a soothsayer, you do not know what word I was using at all, and you cannot, therefore, rule me out until I offend in a way that you understand and comprehend.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Peters. Both of us have been here a long time.

We have to pity the National Party’s dilemma. What does a party do when its most basic philosophy, most basic beliefs, and all its policies are not only completely discredited but are so unpalatable to the voting public that they would result in the party surely not getting elected? The answer is quite simple: it does not release any policy detail whatsoever. We in the Government are often asked in this House why we refer all the time to the National Government of the 1990s. It is not simply because Labour inherited such a huge social, economic, and infrastructural deficit that New Zealand is still paying for it today; it is because that was the last time we received any policy detail whatsoever from the National Party. That was the last time we had any idea of what a National Party would do in Government. So we have to refer back to those times.

I know that the National Party does not like going back there—to do so would prove in practice that everything National stands for today would be a complete failure in the future, because it was a complete failure back then, as well. We know that the National Party has only one policy at the moment, and that relates to tax. Even on that we do not have any detail because National has acknowledged that its policy at the last election might not now be affordable, despite the fact that the entire way through the election campaign Labour members were telling National that it would not be affordable.

I wonder what would have happened if National had been elected and forced to implement its extreme promises during the election campaign. Well, I will tell members. In Budget 2006 we would have been facing cuts in spending in health, education, and infrastructure that once again would have destroyed the fabric of this country, particularly in provincial New Zealand. I have often said, and I will say again, that at the last election I was absolutely astounded that a party vying to be the major party in Government was allowed to get away with having absolutely no policy detail in the major area of Government spending, which is health.

I was also amazed that National members were allowed to get away with going around the country and promising to double, treble, or quadruple Government spending in every single area of Government expenditure, and that not one person in the media said: “Hang on, the emperor has no clothes. National cannot possibly afford to cut revenue in the way it is suggesting.” Let me take David Bennett as an example. I see him over there. He thinks we should buy up all private land that has a camping ground on it and is being sold. Who will pay for that? David Bennett thinks that is Labour policy. Our policy was to do up Department of Conservation land so that it could be used for camping grounds. In any case, if the Government was looking to purchase land, the stupidest thing to do would be to come out and say that it thought it would buy some land. The stupidest thing to do would be to indicate that it might be interested so that landowners then rack up the price. But, of course, the National Party does not care about that. National members care about getting their names in the paper rather than getting outcomes.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to help the member who is on her feet. She should read the Landcorp annual report and realise just how stupid her own Government is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

That was yet another “not a point of order” from Mr Brownlee.

The National Party does not tell us what it stands for because it is an extremist party, led by a man with an extreme right-wing agenda. He is a man who does not care who runs and owns our public schools, and he has said that publicly. He is a man who said our nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. He is a man who would have had us participating in the Iraq war. National has never talked about how much money it would have cost if that policy had been implemented. He is a man whose policies are so extreme that the Exclusive Brethren feel comfortable with him.

National can set up its liberal caucus and decide that it needs to get more “touchy-feely” to re-engage with certain sectors of our community, but it will take more than wearing New Zealand designer clothing to reconnect with the communities that National members have lost touch with. I thought it was very interesting that National members have decided they need to get back in touch with the arts, culture, and heritage community and with women voters at the same time that they are describing women members of Parliament as being like Lady Macbeth because we have given up our femininity. I say that the National Party probably does not need to look very deep to see why it has an issue with women voters. As my colleague Marian Hobbs pointed out, Dr Brash said that to talk of the horrors of the 1990s is to talk cattle manure. I suspect that is easy to say when one is on a Reserve Bank Governor’s salary.

Yesterday the European Parliament, by a large majority, called for the closure of the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this year I had a similar Guantanamo Bay motion on the Order Paper, but Labour vetoed our having a debate on it in the House. I would like my fellow MPs to become a little bolder on this important matter and risk offending the Bush administration, because there is hardly a Parliament in the world where the majority of MPs are not for the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

This week the Bush administration’s total lack of humanity was exposed when it described the suicide of three Guantanamo Bay inmates as an “act of war” and a “good PR move”. Everyone knows that it was the result of the three men’s despair at being illegally detained, denigrated, and mistreated, year on year, without charge and without any prospect of release, as is the case for hundreds of other prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay hellhole.

The abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay should also motivate us to be better—to not act in an arbitrary manner against foreigners in our country and to give them an opportunity to explain themselves, with legal representation if they want it. This is true whether people are refugees, like Ahmed Zaoui, or here on a student visa, like Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali from Saudi Arabia. In Mr Ali’s case, the Government admits that he was not posing any immediate threat to New Zealand security, but it summarily bundled him out of the country on a Draconian section 72 removal order, for no apparent reason other than to avoid his getting legal representation and being able to convey to us his side of the story. Surely, such due process and the Government’s accountability for its actions is relevant when Mr Ali was interrogated intensively after September 11 by American officials who decided he was not a security risk and let him stay in America.

We also should not be helping George Bush to fight his wars, whether in Iraq or in terms of his preparations for nuclear war. That is why it was disturbing to find that Rakon, one of our premier companies, is developing crystal oscillators—be they shock-hardened or G-hardened oscillators for smart shells, or radiation-hardened oscillators—to military specifications laid down by the US defence contractor Rockwell Collins so as to enable the guidance systems on missiles, whether or not nuclear-tipped, to work well in the environment of a nuclear exchange.

The deception involved is also concerning, because last August, when I raised concerns, Rakon put out a press statement saying that it: “was not privy to the end-use systems, equipment, or applications developed by its customers.” That contrasts with what it wrote in internal emails in that same year, as recently exposed by the New Zealand Herald. These showed that Rakon did know, and that it was developing its oscillators on contract for specific military end uses. Rakon also did not tell the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which governs the export of strategic goods, the full story about the end uses. It did not tell the ministry it was developing radiation-hardened oscillators and what their end use was.

Unfortunately, the ministry now seems to be buying Rakon’s old line that the oscillators are not specifically military. In a reply to a written parliamentary question that I received this week, the ministry ran the argument that radiation-hardened oscillators are also useful in: “satellite communications and the aerospace industry.” The point is not whether the oscillators have civilian uses but whether they were developed up to a military standard or threshold, which they were. One thing in Rakon’s emails that gives the game away is that Rockwell Collins’ specified that nuclear-hardened oscillators need to function correctly at a depth of 135 metres. That suggests they will be used for military missiles, because those are the only missiles that need to be launched from an underground silo or a submarine. As a nuclear-free country and as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, we should not help America improve its capacity to fight a nuclear war. Instead, we should be pressing it to fulfil its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty to engage in comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

Another area in which we should be careful not to go down the American track is policing, yet that is what this Government is doing by starting a trial of the Taser stun gun, whose 50,000 volt charge has contributed to the death of over 150 Americans in recent times, as documented by Amnesty International.

I rise to speak today about a Government that is hanging on by its fingernails.

💬 David Bennett: I hope it doesn’t bite them!

Yes, I hope it does not bite them. We know this because we can see what is happening. Even in this House yesterday, Mr Speaker, your authority was challenged by one of your own members. That tells us that this Government is in disarray. I am on a select committee with poor old Taito Phillip Field. He is a good guy. He is acting more like a member of the Opposition in that select committee, because he knows—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s close to being one.

ANNE TOLLEY:—that he is close to being one. He is on the managed exit list; there is nothing surer. Of course, the Prime Minister has to look after people like our friend Taito Phillip Field and Marian Hobbs, who is in the House and who spoke in the general debate earlier on, because there is only a one-vote majority. In order for this Government to hang on until grim death, it has to look after those who are looking for an exit.

Last week the Hon Ruth Dyson, who is the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF), said in a media release: “Turning young offenders around before they become adult criminals is one of the most important things the youth justice system can do.” I agree with her. But I ask that Minister what she has been doing for youth justice for the last 7 years. It is quite clear from the capability review that was released at the same time as the Minister made that statement that she and her department have been doing nothing. They have been sitting on their hands while the youth justice system has been floundering under heavy bureaucracy, under poor management, from a lack of funds, and, most important, from a lack of focus within the Child, Youth and Family Services structure.

Back in March the State Services Commission pointed out to the department that it had not given a high enough priority to completing the youth justice capability review, despite continued attention from the judiciary. The judiciary itself has been saying to this Government that it needs to know exactly what is happening within youth justice. It said it needed that capability review completed so that it could see some improvement in the way we look after our young people who are getting into trouble. It has been 3 years since the baseline review directed the department to complete a capability review, and it took 2 years to complete that—the department came back and asked for a year’s extension. So after a review said that this Government did not know what it was doing in youth justice, a report was put out saying that this Government still did not know what it was doing in youth justice. There is not enough funding, not enough emphasis, and not enough staff, and it shows in some of the figures coming through on our youths who are getting into trouble.

Nothing has changed under this Minister and this Government. The recommendation in the 2003 baseline review that we should have dedicated staff positions for youth justice has not resulted in anything happening. The capability review states this should happen, and all of a sudden we are supposed to believe the Minister when she says it will fall into place in the next few months. With the merger of Child, Youth and Family Services with the Ministry of Social Development, youth justice will be buried even more. The chief executive of the ministry himself labelled this new big superministry of social development as the Borg mothership. Well, I fear for our youth offenders under that sort of structure.

National actually backs the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, who has been calling since 2004 for youth justice to be removed from the management of the Child, Youth and Family Services because it could not balance youth offending with its care and protection role. Right throughout the capability review and right throughout the baseline review that point was made strongly, and this Government has sat on its hands and watched.

I want to talk today in this general debate about the vacuum where National’s policy ought to be. A lack of leadership is reflected in a lack of policy. In recent times a lot of sound and fury has come from National Party members, signifying nothing. We have seen them join the ranks of the barking over the microchipping law implementation—the original legislation that, at least in part, they supported at the time of its passage. We have seen them braying over possible disruption from industrial action in the health sector, when a Labour-led Government attached the health sector code of good faith as a schedule to its Employment Relations Act—a code that guarantees the maintenance of life-preserving services in the event of industrial action.

That measure was put through by a Labour-led Government. It was done in a way that represents this Labour-led Government’s way of proceeding—by consultation and by getting parties together to agree. In the present situation, the district health boards and the unions have agreed, through negotiation and arbitration, on systems that need to be put into place to ensure that life-preserving services are provided during any industrial action. That is a careful balance, protecting both the safety of the public and workers’ right to withdraw their labour. The process was arrived at a couple of years ago in the form of a code of good faith. That code has recently been added to the Employment Relations Act. It is an effective and a balanced measure.

Further, Parliament has recently approved financial appropriations for the 2006-07 Budget. The best the National Opposition could do was to ritualistically trot out half-hearted speeches in opposition. I have used three out of numerous examples I could use to demonstrate the lack of policy alternatives put up by the National Opposition. The National Party looks like an unfocused lobby group. It is a band looking for a wagon. It leaps upon any noisy issue to maximise activity but completely lacks effectiveness.

Why is that? The reason is its lack of policy. No alternative Budget has been put up. Numbers of National MPs are secretly very impressed by this Government’s investment in infrastructure. We are putting billions of dollars into public transport, roads, and infrastructure, and that will clearly move our country forward. What does the National Opposition offer? Nothing! It simply offers sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Why can those members opposite not offer this country an alternative? There are two reasons. First of all, they are incapable of devising alternatives, and, secondly, they are incapable of agreeing on what the alternatives should be. What do we know about their current policies and the real agenda of their current leader? Let us go to a couple of quotations. In his term as leader of the National Party, Dr Brash has said: “And I don’t want us to be afraid of the electorate, by watering down our message.” He said: “I have a personal view, and at this point I am not expressing it.” He has said things of that order that have led commentators to say things such as this quotation from the New Zealand Herald: “Brash brings with him a baggage of extremist economic policies that thankfully I had thought had been rejected by mainstream political parties. It’s as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed him by unseen.” Further, the Sunday Star-Times states: “… the voice of ignorance, narrow political advantage, and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.”

I will tell this House what New Zealanders see in this Labour-led Government. They see secure, confident leadership. They see capable and dedicated front-bench members. They see a united caucus driving forward with a clear agenda to transform this economy for the benefit of all, to support families to get on, and to build pride in New Zealand’s unique national identity. All three of those characteristics are completely lacking in the Opposition.

What we are looking at day after day is a very worried Government. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who are hanging on to power—but only just. Everything they touch turns to custard. They cannot even keep the lights on in Auckland. This is a Government that is very, very worried.

They look across the House, and what do they see? They see us. They see the proud National Party. They see an invigorated caucus, led by Dr Brash, just waiting to take back the Treasury benches. They see 24 new MPs, each one of them working away, making their mark, sizing up the Ministers on the other side of the House, and waiting for their chance to be the next Government. We look at them, and what do we see?

💬 Anne Tolley: I try not to look.

We have to look at them. Even from the back benches we have to look at them.

What do we see? We see the managed exit list. We see the list of Ministers who have risen and quickly fallen again. We see the list of MPs who are just waiting for their managed exit. How many of them are there? Poor old Marian Hobbs was absolutely shafted over the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary. All that the loyal, hard-working Marian Hobbs wanted was $3 million for her significant projects fund. She did not get it for Karori. Invercargill, Queenstown, and Dunedin got it, but poor old Marian Hobbs got nothing.

Taito Phillip Field turns to God. God knows whether he will stick with Labour. And what about Jim Sutton? No, he did not want to become ambassador to Canada. What about him? He was defeated in Aoraki. Well, maybe there is Niue.

Even worse, this is the Government that will not take responsibility for its own actions. How many years has it been in power? It has been in power for 7 long years, and still it cannot take responsibility for its own actions. This is the “run for cover” Government. This is the Minister of Finance who sits on an $8 million surplus but cannot see the link between that and delivering tax cuts that will benefit all New Zealanders.

Worse still, whose fault is it? It is the media’s fault. Of course it is not the Government’s fault. And what about the worst offender of all? What about the do-nothing Minister—my friend Mr Jim Anderton, the Minister responsible for drug policy. What will it take for Mr Anderton to tighten the regulations around the sale and supply of party pills? A survey released yesterday showed that one in five young people has tried party pills—20 percent of our population has tried party pills. Is that not enough to make Mr Anderton act to tighten up the regulations? Clearly it is not. Sixty percent of the people questioned in that survey released yesterday believed that the present regulation of party pills is too light.

Now is the time to act. We must move quickly to protect our young people. Mr Anderton is the Minister in charge of drug policy. He is the man who needs to take responsibility, because we now find that the problem of party pills is much bigger and much worse than we ever imagined. Mr Anderton has sat on his hands while the evidence has mounted—the evidence from surveys and from evidence-based work but also the anecdotal evidence that is building up and up on this issue.

Finally, I want to send a message to Mr Anderton. He may not have acted to shut down the party pill industry, but I have. I have got a party pill shop closed in Ōāmaru—one down, many more to go.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.