General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Madam Speaker, I am sure you will agree that it is great to have the House back in session, and to see that in terms of the performance of Dr Brash and the National Party, absolutely nothing has changed. In 2 days they have absolutely failed to make any impact in this House at all. We remember what a disaster the last session was for Dr Brash. Members may remember the “walk the plank” incident, when Dr Brash looked as shaky and uncertain of himself physically as everybody knew his political performance had been. And that was meant to be a photo opportunity for the National Party! I ask the National Party which adviser told Dr Brash that that would look good on television. Was it Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, or John Key? With friends like that, no wonder Dr Brash does not need enemies.

Then members will remember the email fiasco. Dr Brash called a press conference to talk about an email from himself, only to say that he had not seen the email. He seemed surprised that that was what the press conference was about, and he asked a journalist whether he could see a copy of the email. Again, which of the advisers told him to go ahead and do that? I think it was John Key, who is studiously avoiding eye contact. I think it was his advice, because John Key sees the main chance.

So it was that at the start of this session John Armstrong from the New Zealand Herald wrote an article challenging Dr Brash, entitled “Brash should lead or leave”. Of course, we can see from the way Dr Brash has fronted up to this debate which option he has taken. When it gets hot in the House, Don Brash is always there, leading from the front. Don Brash has not led. He has not led in his caucus, he has not led in the House, and he has not led the country.

Yesterday was just another disaster for Dr Brash. He addressed the Local Government New Zealand conference and—as his colleagues know, because at least half a dozen of them have received telephone calls about it from their local mayors—he gave an appalling performance. Perhaps it was not a good idea for Dr Brash, given his current position and performance, to begin his speech by preaching to the conference about what good leadership is. It was a bit presumptuous, the delegates thought, given that he had scored a lofty 13 percent in the latest TV3 poll. But I do agree with his line about the sort of leadership that allows others to flourish, because flourishing on the front bench opposite, preening themselves, are the three pretenders to take over from Dr Brash as soon as they can agree amongst themselves which of them will be the contender.

Dr Brash’s speech was ill-judged in many ways. He spent most of it telling the elected representatives at the conference how hopeless they were. One mayor told us that he talked to them as if they were “a bunch of dicks”. That is how the mayors felt about it.

The speech was not only ill-judged but also very revealing, because it showed the old ideological Don Brash who emerges from time to time from behind the cloak of populism he tries to create for himself. There was Dr Brash telling the delegates that he would run down central and local government services, just as he has revealed from time to time his desire to privatise Kiwibank, New Zealand Post, and the Accident Compensation Corporation; to raise the retirement age, which he does not admit very often in the House but it is on the record; to cut benefits; to scrap the minimum wage; and to compel young mothers to adopt out their kids.

There, again, was the Dr Brash who spends his time focused on running down his own country. New Zealand, he said, has no prospect of keeping its brightest and best people and no prospect of climbing back up the ladder of developed nations. Who in this country would want a leader who tries constantly to promote himself by diminishing his country? Dr Brash has done that time and time again, and it is disgraceful that he does so. That man has no vision and no leadership, and his days are numbered.

Yesterday this country learnt that there is no bound to the extent of corruption Helen Clark will allow in her Government in order to remain Prime Minister. The public of New Zealand was presented with a report into the activities of Mr Phillip Field and his relationship with other Ministers in getting preferment for his immigration cases so that he might benefit personally from those decisions.

We know that the report could have come to no other conclusion than the one it came to. In other words, the report by Dr Noel Ingram QC is very cleverly written, because he was extremely constrained by the terms of reference under which he had to work. He could not call people to give witness under oath, he could not seek documents, as any other inquiry may be able to do, and he could not subpoena people to appear before him and tell the truth. He had to weave his way through hearsay and try to stay one step ahead of Mr Field and his fellows, who were warning people off and telling them not to speak to the Queen’s Counsel, in order to prevent and minimise the effect of this report.

When we look at the terms of reference, as Dr Ingram so clearly invites us to do at the start of the report, we see that it is quite obvious that those terms of reference—put together by the Prime Minister—were designed to get exactly the result that came out. It is the Prime Minister who set the terms of reference. It is the Prime Minister who, no matter what, knew that at the end of this process she would be able to say that Mr Field was in the clear—a bit of bad judgment, apparently, but in the clear. And it is the Prime Minister who, in response to allegations of corruption against Mr Field, is able to stand in the House today and say that the report could find no direct evidence of that.

What that tells us, what that tells the whole country, and what that confirms is that Dr Ingram, in this very cleverly written report, calls us to read the subtext and note that indeed wholesale corruption was going on in the office of Phillip Field—let alone the idea that into his office comes some little refugee who, at the end of the line after 7 years in New Zealand and with no Minister being prepared to let him in, suddenly lets the cat out of the bag that he is a tiler. Something went off in Mr Field’s head, and he said: “Hello, can I cook up a scheme here?”. The next minute he had the guy on the plane, using air points. He got his ministerial secretary to arrange the travel, banishing him to Samoa and paying him a lousy $90 a week to do a $15,000 job, on the promise that he would get him a work visa back into New Zealand if the job was satisfactory—and just to make sure that the job was satisfactory, he rounded up some of his other loose mates around the community and set them to work in his various houses around the countryside.

It has been said—and there is nothing untoward in this—that Mr Field bought one of those houses from a constituent who was in trouble, then flicked it off a short time later for a $136,000 profit. The question is: why did those Thai painting pixies come into that house and, apparently anonymously, paint it for Mr Field?

The real point here, though, is that although the Prime Minister says there was no direct evidence of corruption, there never could be any direct evidence of corruption as long as Mr Ingram was denied the powers to properly inquire into this matter. That is the essence of it. The Prime Minister knew at the start that she had a political problem. Just a couple of weeks before the election it was all turning to custard. Then, after the election, we have this idea that Mr Field was somehow stood down from a ministry. Was he, or was he not? Is he, or is he not, a Minister who has been stood down? He has paid no price whatsoever. He is out there now, saying he has been vindicated. Well, he is not vindicated. We would like some answers to questions about the various lafo collected in his office.

It is clear that the deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, is just as much “yesterday” as his leader. I ask Don Brash to please stay on as leader. He is at 13 percent in the polls, and going down. That is the trend we want. He is saved only by a gridlock in the National Party at the moment, and he is getting desperate. To appoint into his office the man who ran the Big Gay Out, in defiance of his masters from the Exclusive Brethren, is a really desperate approach.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that Government members are very sensitive to the allegation that they are corrupt. They cannot imply that anyone in this House is influenced from outside. Even I did not imply that about Mr Field. I said that Mr Field acted on his own behalf, that his corruption was all his own affair, and that he has been covered by the Prime Minister. Of course, for Mr Mallard to say that Don Brash is somehow influenced from outside is quite inappropriate. He should apologise, but when one is corrupt one does not always do these things.

I apologise.

I would like to give the House a preview of the National Party conference to be held this weekend. I will refer to what the National Party used at its regional conference round this year, in building to its annual conference. First of all, I have a document that states: “We Must Make National Cool”. That is a contradiction. Don Brash is so cool that he is just about dead. He is a cold fish.

National members want to use The Feelers at the conference. Did they ask The Feelers? Is that a Christian Heritage NZ approach to life? What sort of thing is the National Party doing? Did National members ask Steriogram—the group they complained about when it played outside Parliament—whether it could appear in its presentation? I bet they did not. National members want to use collateral and merchandise, but did they look carefully? Which company does the collateral and merchandise come from? It comes from Dawn Raid. Some of us know what the current Dawn Raid is, and some of us also know what it is named after. Shame on the National Party—the party of the dawn raids—for trying to use Dawn Raid collateral and merchandise for its own promotion. Don Brash approved this for the National Party.

It gets better. Another document states: “Mix Young Nats with charity … It’s not what you know, it’s who you know! If you, or a brother or sister are aged between 13 and 24 and have been diagnosed with cancer, CanTeen is for you.” The approach of the National Party is to mix Young Nats with CanTeen, with the Cancer Society, and with Youthline. What a cynical, dirty approach. How low can one go in politics?

Then there is another joke. A document states: “Get covered in the women’s mags and advertise with them”. Judith Collins is on the cover of the Australian Women’s Weekly; Jacqui Dean, who I understand is an MP but I don’t know whether I have seen her yet, is on the cover of Her Business—“Jacqui Dean: The road from Otago to Parliament”—and Jackie Blue is also on the cover of that magazine.

Then we come to the classic. National is the party that will go all soft and caring! We have heard National members talk a lot recently about Plunket, and now we know why. National is telling its people to get out, for cynical political reasons, and support women-specific charities, such as breast cancer, Women’s Refuge, and Rape Crisis. I say that that approach to a National Party conference is absolutely disgraceful. It is a sure sign of a deputy leader and a desperate leader, Don Brash, stooping very, very low in order to get votes. A document from the conference states: “Sell our female MPs”. That is an incredible plan, given National’s approach. Its members ignore their women MPs, and they demote them when they disagree with them. The party has hardly any women MPs, and it wants to try to sell them. I say: “On what street?”.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is slightly unusual. I appreciate that the Hon Trevor Mallard has highlighted for the country the vast breadth of the National Party’s reach across the country. I simply extend an invitation to him to be part of our future advertising.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

I seek leave to table the presentation that I have here from Greg Sheehan, who was the general manager of the National Party.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I will do so immediately after my colleagues have used it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Trevor Mallard finished his speech with a comment that you might not have heard. He implied that some of the National Party women MPs should be sold on the street. I take personal offence at that. The member should stand and apologise for that comment, and for the implication.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I did not pick it up. Was an insult offered?

💬 Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If the member feels offended, I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): An apology has been given.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Apologies count under the Standing Orders. The member should be asked to apologise properly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): He did—

One cannot qualify an apology in this House, Madam Assistant Speaker, and you should know that.

Seeing as the member is offended, I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): We will just clarify the situation. The member just has to stand up and apologise. He cannot say: “Seeing as the member” first.

Are you requiring me to apologise?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just apologise.

Well, you did not require me to do so earlier, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Stop trifling with the Chair!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There will be silence during points of order. I did not pick it up the first time, Mr Mallard, but the second time you did say: “Seeing as the member”. You are required just to withdraw and apologise, so you will do that.

I withdraw and apologise.

This is the Ingram report. This is the disgrace. Helen Clark, Prime Minister, says that this report finishes the issues around Taito Phillip Field. That shows the new low to which Labour has sunk, because this is an extraordinary story of the exploitation of vulnerable people. I have never seen a report like it. It outlines the systematic exploitation of vulnerable new immigrants. Five Thai immigrants were working for nothing, on a house in Samoa for Mr Field. Seven Thai people—five of them assisted by Mr Field—were working on a house of Mr Field’s for nothing, here in Wellington. Unknown numbers of Thai immigrants, assisted by Taito Phillip Field, worked on a house of his in Church Street, Auckland. That is a disgraceful, disgusting exploitation of vulnerable people by Labour, and Helen Clark says that is OK. Helen Clark says that it is OK for members of her Government to exploit—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Calm yourself.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Minister Burton says that I should calm myself. He thinks it is OK for his colleagues to exploit some of the most vulnerable people in this country. That is a disgrace. It is an indictment on Helen Clark, Prime Minister, if she says it is all OK.

What Noel Ingram had to say about Taito Phillip Field is interesting. He says: “As to Mr Field, at this point in the report it is sufficient that I note that at all times he was co-operative in terms of making himself available …”. He did not say he was cooperative in terms of telling the truth. Ingram could have said that, but, no, he said only that Mr Field was cooperative in terms of making himself available and providing documents. He went on to say: “I am concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided to me by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” Those are powerful words from a Queen’s Counsel. He said that Taito Phillip Field was cooperative in terms of making himself available, but he was concerned about the honesty of what Phillip Field had to say.

I remind the House that the key players in this saga are Mr Siriwan and a Ms Phanngarm. Siriwan had been illegally in this country for 8 years as this saga unfolded. He had been refused refugee status and was working illegally. Ms Phanngarm had been illegally in the country for 5 years. She was declined refugee status on four separate occasions and deported from this country.

There are some really serious questions. Why did the Associate Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, cave in on such a clear case where work visas should not have been issued, where someone had been breaking the law for so long? Noel Ingram looked at this issue very carefully. He looked at the issue of whether the Hon Damien O’Connor had any idea that this Mr Siriwan was working, without pay for that matter, for Taito Phillip Field as Taito Phillip Field was twisting Damien O’Connor’s arm very strongly. The report makes it very clear that the New Zealand Immigration Service knew. It had clear information that Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, and the service knew that Phillip Field was making representations in respect of that person.

Let me make it very clear that I do not question Damien O’Connor’s integrity, but there are questions to be answered as to what went on. It is alleged that Damien O’Connor’s private secretary had been told, prior to Damien O’Connor giving the exception to policy direction for Siriwan, about Siriwan working for Phillip Field. What is even more curious is that the Minister, the Hon Paul Swain, had met with Siriwan in Samoa and knew what was going on.

This is a very important week for leadership. This week we had the Local Government New Zealand conference, with leaders from around this country meeting in Wellington. Back in Parliament we have Labour leadership, on the back of the celebrations of our 90th year, showing the lead in this country. And this weekend in Christchurch we have the National Party conference. [Interruption] Members ask why it is in Christchurch. The reason, as Mr Key would know, is that in Auckland, as the New Zealand Herald states, the drums are quietly beating. The Auckland-based party stalwarts are gathering opinions as to the chances of winning the next election with the current leadership in place.

This weekend in Christchurch, Don Brash will attempt to salvage his flagging leadership. It is going down the gurgler. Today he attempted to tell the rest of the country what leadership should be about, at the very time he is flagging in the polls. There are only a couple of areas in which I have ever seen Don Brash show leadership in his entire time as the leader of the National Party. One goes back to the outbreak of that unfortunate war in Iraq and what Don Brash and his colleague Simon Power said. I quote Simon Power first: “The National Party has always been international in its outlook. Without reservation we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” Don Brash, showing true leadership, said: “I think I would have done what President Bush did.” That is about the only sign of leadership we have seen in Don Brash’s period in charge of the National Party. In every other area he has done a flip-flop.

There is one area where I can acknowledge he has been consistent in his indications—it is not clear policy—and it is that if he were ever to get the chance of being Prime Minister he would sell anything he could get his hands on. He would sell Landcorp and he would sell our electricity assets. This week in the House claims were made that we would be better off with privatised prisons. We have known for quite some time that the National Party is committed to selling State assets, and New Zealanders should be reminded of that, time and time again. But I have to say, as hard as that will be, his most recent attempt at a sales job will be a flop: “selling our female MPs”. If Dr Brash has ever bought into a loser, that has to be it. That will be the biggest challenge Don Brash will face. The three MPs are pictured here—Dr Jackie Blue, Jacqui Dean, and Judith Collins. In themselves they are not bad people. They are misguided, in the wrong party, and certainly led by the wrong person.

I have to say to Dr Brash that his leadership is pathetic. The conference in Christchurch will be facing a very difficult challenge. That challenge is: “Do we dump you now, or do we dump you in the future?”. I will leave that little dilemma to the wonderful members who will attend the National Party conference in Christchurch.

One of the sad things I have learnt today from my colleague Trevor Mallard is that the National Party in its desperation will stoop so low as to abuse wonderful organisations, such as CanTeen—organisations that go out and help challenged young teenagers who are facing the biggest battle of their lives. That cynical bunch of politicians, desperate as they are and led by someone who is absolutely hopeless, is prepared to abuse an organisation that struggles for funding. That organisation is one I have been in contact with on a regular basis. It is an organisation that is supporting young New Zealanders to battle for their lives and that is helping—

💬 John Key: We’re out their helping, not sitting in Wellington warming our seats.

—and John Key just sits there and makes cynical, snide remarks, because he is quite happy as an MP, as a member who thinks he is the incoming leader of the National Party, to abuse organisations like that. I am simply ashamed that any political party in this House would do that. Those members will not sell the leadership of the National Party, they will not sell the female members of the National Party, and they will not show any leadership to New Zealand into the future, because their leadership is finished.

A few months ago we had an election, and after an election there seems to be two things that are certain: first, the Government and the parties that support it are held to account for what they achieve, and, secondly, the Opposition, particularly if they are three-time losers, have a battle on who will lead them. That is what is happening in the National Party. The National Party is a sad, sad shadow of what it once was. All we know for certain is that Don Brash will go. What we do not know is when he will go, and we are waiting with bated breath to work out who will come after him. Will it be John Key? Will it be Bill English or Simon Power? Surely it will not be Maurice Williamson. We wait with bated breath, because poor old Don Brash is simply not cutting it. He is not up to the task, and every moment he spends in this House he proves that time and time again. On the reverse side of things—

💬 John Key: Do you guys have any policies left?

I invite the member to study this. I will make it available to him by tabling it. It is New Zealand First’s record of achievement in the 9 months since agreeing to confidence and supply. Those members opposite should tell me whether this is false: that we have 1,000 more police—

💬 John Key: Woof, woof!

That does not sound like a dog barking, I say to Mr Key. We have 1,000 more police and 250 support staff. The minimum rate of superannuation has been increased to 66 percent. This time next year we will have a golden age card. Already there is significant funding for elder care, and there is more to come.

There is a full review of the immigration legislation of this country—something we have been making a noise about for many a year. Surely the National Party wants to get on board and get the immigration laws correct. Do they?

R Doug Woolerton: Yes, they say they do.

They do not know what they want to do. [Interruption] Well, we will speed it up and ensure their leader gets the very first one. We are increasing the minimum wage. By the year 2008 the minimum wage will be $12 an hour. We are supporting the Buy New Zealand Made campaign.

💬 Hon Member: That’s the Greens’.

It is not the Greens’, with due respect. It is New Zealand First’s policy that the Greens—[Interruption] We are in line with the Greens. We had it even before the Greens were the Greens. How does the member think we got our name—New Zealand First—for goodness’ sake!

Next year will be an export year, and there will be a toll-free Tauranga Harbour Bridge. We are not just full of waffle about what is going to happen in Tauranga. The people will get their bridge toll free. We are reducing gaming tax for racing. Members should go and ask the racing industry whether it appreciates Winston Peters in particular, or New Zealand First. The member can scream—

R Doug Woolerton: National had years to do that and never did a thing.

It never did a thing. It tried to climb on the back of it after we got the thing going. But we actually achieved it. We have a bill to reduce the number of MPs—and I have to say to those honourable members opposite and to the members on the Labour front bench that if members of the public listened to this House during question time they would agree 100 percent to reducing the number of MPs.

New Zealand First has a bill before the select committee to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. I guarantee that National members will support that. [Interruption] Oh, they will not? We have made it quite clear to the Labour Government that there will be no sales of strategic assets—none whatsoever. We have not lost sight of the fact that Labour sold them in 1984, and that National sold them in 1990.

So this is how Labour celebrates its 90th anniversary: its Prime Minister goes out in public defending a millionaire MP who was caught trading political favours for free labour from immigrants. That is how Labour has celebrated its 90th anniversary. Is there anything in the tradition of the so-called workers’ party that reflects well on this incident? Absolutely not! I say to members of this House that they should imagine the bile and the outrage there would be if a National MP—my colleague Mr Key, for instance—had been caught with illegal immigrant labourers painting his house on the basis that he got them a work permit in New Zealand.

What do the supporters of the Labour Party think—supporters who have always valued the skill of tradesmanship; the tradition of passing those skills on—when the Labour Minister of Immigration gives a work permit to someone who has been an overstayer for 7 years and has had his application for refugee status turned down? That Minister, Damien O’Connor, should explain why he gave that permit, because, on the face of it, he did it to please his friend Taito Phillip Field. We could imagine the bile if a National Party MP had been caught doing the same thing. Is Helen Clark not interested in whether those workers were working legally? Did their employer pay their PAYE? And, as my colleague Maurice Williamson asked this morning, did they pay their GST if they were contractors? Were they paid the minimum wage? I ask Helen Clark whether they were properly subject to the occupational safety and health regulations. Did any of the things that Labour says it has campaigned on for 90 years happen in respect of those vulnerable low-paid workers?

We do not know the answer to those questions, because Helen Clark does not want to ask them on Labour’s 90th birthday. Helen Clark has been parading the country as Labour’s second-most successful Prime Minister ever, celebrating the 90th birthday of her party by taking a political action that runs against every single principle the Labour Party used to stand for—and I say “used to”, because now it does not.

The worst of it is that there is no shame about this. There is no embarrassment. I can remember sitting in the Government ranks when National Ministers made mistakes.

💬 Hon Member: Name them.

I will name two of them who paid the price: Denis Marshall and Murray McCully. I can recall, at the very least, the sense that something wrong had happened. There is none of that from members of the Labour Party, yet this is totally contrary to every principle they have ever stood for. Their Prime Minister says that it is yesterday’s issue and it is time to move on. There is not even a shred of embarrassment that a Minister of the Crown—almost certainly illegally—exploited people and used free labour. The Queen’s Counsel did not set out to investigate those matters, but if the workers were working for nothing and paying no tax, that is criminal. People go to court if they do not pay their workers, and, if they do not pay their workers’ PAYE, they get done by the Inland Revenue Department. These are criminal activities, not errors of judgment, and every one of them is against the principles of the Labour Party. That is what is so sad. I tell Mr Gosche that that is how Labour Party members celebrated their 90th birthday.

I quote a sentence from the Leader of the Opposition’s speech which I think he gave to the Local Government conference: “In my experience, good leadership allows others to flourish; it inspires, challenges and encourages.” Unfortunately, there is a typo. A comma has been put in that should not have been put in. It should have just read: “It inspires others to flourish. It inspires challenges.” We are seeing them today. We have just seen one challenger sit down and the other one, next to him, will be up next. They are all auditioning because Dr Brash has taken the advice. He could not lead, so he left. He left it to Bill, he left it to John Key, and he left it to Gerry, and that is what others would expect.

But talking about 90th birthdays, I am not an ungrateful person. I am very grateful to the National Party that they leave their leader in place; a leader like Dr Brash is the biggest birthday present the Labour Party could ever have on its 90th birthday. He has figures that, I suppose, John Key—sitting at 7 percent at the moment—would aspire to. John Key would like to be up there with Don on 13 and 14 percent, because that is where the Leader of the Opposition is.

It is no wonder, when one looks at the cynicism and listens to Bill English over there—suddenly the man of moral rectitude—they are like that over on that side of the House. They are so pure. It is just unbelievable that we are so lucky in this House to have people over there with no faults—not one of them. Bill English used Murray McCully as an example of wonderful behaviour. I can remember that. Was it tourism boards? Who else did he pay off? He is held up by the National Party as a man of moral rectitude.

Well, it fits with this National Party that says it is going to make National cool. I picked a page from their proposals and I see a couple of bands. We are very familiar with the National Party’s fondness for hip hop. We used to hear it coming from their side of the House regularly. So they have the Dawn Raid hoodies here, all fitted out so Don can do a bit of break-dancing with Bill, John, and Gerry, so that they can make National cool. Yeah, right! [Interruption] I am sure Maurice Williamson can be cool without a Dawn Raid hoodie. He is one of the few that actually understands a little about real people in New Zealand. That is why the National Party put him in the wilderness for so long.

But what about this for Bill English to look at: the proposal to mix Young Nats with charity. They have this political strategy for them to get out there and collect for charity and have a Young Nat badge on while they are doing it. That is what this is all about. So let us have Bill English’s lecture on morality when we look at that one. Is Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who railed so passionately about all these things, getting out there to do that as well, with all his colleagues in the Young Nats? Does Dr Lockwood Smith support that sort of cynical politics? Yes, he does. Of course, he does.

The women of the National Party must have thrown up when they saw this proposal at the Auckland regional conference. They know how dumped on they are in that party, but the party wants them to go on the cover of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly. That is about as good as it gets in the National Party. Yes, let us plaster Judith Collins over the cover of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly. That edition would sell well, would it not? Women would be lining up for it. But that is the cynicism of the National Party. It will sell out female MPs and make them go on the cover of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly; that is about as much as they think women MPs are worth on that side of the House.

So getting a moral lecture from any member on that side of the House is just bizarre. Look at their strategy. Don out there break-dancing in Dawn Raid hoodies. Yeah, right! Judith Collins gracing the front cover of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly as if she is some warm, cuddly individual that ordinary New Zealand women would want to aspire to. Yeah, right! Will we have another passionate speech from that side of the House about their level of cynical politics? No, they will disown this. They will say they sacked the person responsible and got rid of him. It is like the one who told them to walk the plank. He was there a month before Don Brash even went and walked the plank.

When the low-paid people of this country heard the Labour Government launch its Working for Families package, they had no way of envisaging that it would actually be subtitled “Working for Taito”. That is what it has turned out to be. I do not intend to dwell on the immigration side of the “Working for Taito” issue, but I do intend to raise some of the issues that may call into question the legality of some of the practices.

Mr Ingram has shown in his report that there is no question that Mr Taito Phillip Field, member of Parliament, had somebody working for him and doing tiling, painting, and so on in his house in Samoa and in his houses here in New Zealand. I say to Labour members, because probably they have never employed people before, that if they employ someone to do a job, they either employ that person as a staff member—in which case they would have to meet all sorts of obligations, such as occupational safety and health requirements, and deduct PAYE and pay the minimum wage, which is something that Labour crows about all the time—or they employ that person as a contractor. Contractors submit an hourly rate or a quote to do the job and employers pay them accordingly. But in both cases, employers pay tax. Either they pay PAYE by deducting it from the person’s wages, because they employed that person, or they pay GST.

I have just had a house painted by a contractor. I have a copy of the bill of labour, if members would like to see it, and at the bottom of the bill is a big, fat component that states “GST”. My question to Taito Phillip Field—and he could clarify this by taking a call in this House today—is whether he paid those people. I understand that the payment involved quite small sums of money, of 200tala a week or something. The amount may have been under the rate specified in the Minimum Wage Act, so that could have been a breach to start with, but regardless of what it was, did he pay any tax? Or was any tax paid on the moneys? When members read Mr Ingram’s report, they will see how much was going on behind the scenes.

I remind this House about Al Capone. Al Capone was not caught for the murders he instigated or the prostitution and drug rackets he ran. He was caught on a simple little test—he did not pay his tax. He was caught on tax evasion. Here is a question for Labour members: can people get away without paying any tax now, simply by calling it lafo? That is what it is called; it is the same as koha.

So now I will say to all the contractors who come to do something on my house that I will have a “lafo” at the Government on this one, and I will just pay them lafo. Well, I have not heard the Labour Government say that we cannot do that, so is that right? Is that what Phillip Field did? He paid them lafo, or koha—let us “New Zealandise” it.

Does that mean that I can now have somebody, some Thai migrant, come into my house and do the painting and tiling while I just pay koha under the table at less than the minimum wage? There would be no occupational safety and health compliance or accident compensation cover. Can I do that? Well, of course, Labour would scream blue murder if an employer out there was doing that, yet that is exactly what Mr Ingram has said in his report that Taito Phillip Field was doing. I suggest that even if there were not a breach of the Immigration Act, Mr Field has a number of very serious questions to answer about tax compliance and accident compensation, occupational safety and health, and minimum wage legislation.

Mr Ingram went on to say, in allegation No. 2, that four additional Thai people might have been used to work on Mr Field’s house in Samoa. The four would not be interviewed so the finding could not be made, but Mr Ingram stated that they may have worked on the house. Mr Ingram stated, at paragraph 263 of the report: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field’s house in Samoa are to be resolved, it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers …” to investigate. In other words, he would not say so.

We come to the New Zealand houses, like the one at 51 Church Street in Auckland. Mr Ingram stated in his report that Asian painters had done the job, but he also stated, at paragraph 497, that he was concerned by the “unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to the painting”, and that he was unable to establish who had painted the house.

I ask every member of this House, if they own properties that have been painted, whether they did not know who did the painting or whom they made payment to. I ask members to put up their hands if they have ever had a property painted but do not know who had done it or who had asked to do it, and those members did not make a payment for that work to be done. Not a single hand went up! Yet Taito Phillip Field—and his hand was not up, either—would have us believe that was what went on in this case.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. In the Nobel Peace Prize lecture of 1964 the late Dr Martin Luther King challenged America to consider that a great nation is a compassionate nation. He said: “The well-off and the secure have too often become indifferent and oblivious to the poverty and deprivation in their midst. The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds, and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. Just as non-violence exposed the ugliness of racial injustice, so must the infection and sickness of poverty be exposed and healed … we must not be afraid to pursue the remedy no matter how formidable the task.”

Last week the Government stated that certain New Zealanders have higher living standards than they had in 2000. Although I will never diminish the importance of celebrating success, the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth in Aotearoa is a divide that I will not close my eyes to. Etched in my mind is the shocking revelation that 40 percent of Māori and 58 percent of Pacific people have substantially lower living standards than the population as a whole, and that 30 percent of beneficiary children are in severe hardship. The Government is quick to come out and suggest that Working for Families will achieve miracles. If that is true, why is it that in May 2006, less than 2 months ago, Anthony Byett, Chief Economist for the ASB Bank, described the weakness of this year’s Budget as leaving a large number of children—an estimated 175,000—in a parlous state?

How can anyone sit comfortably in this Chamber and ignore the spectre of poverty in the midst of plenty, yet be prepared to vehemently criticise beneficiaries, single parents, and people trapped in the net of dependency? What hope do the children of those families have when they hear politicians continually berating their parents, their relatives, their race? What honesty is there when politicians deliberately cast the underclass of the poor—families whose children go to decile 1 schools, and who live in poor housing conditions—as being privileged? How can any of us reconcile the rhetoric of political debate with the precarious situation of an underclass of citizens? The misery of the poor detracts from the abundance of the rich.

In Te Ao Māori the perilous state of our neighbour reflects poorly on our capacity to care. The concept of manaakitanga acknowledges the mana of others as having equal or greater importance than one’s own, through the expression of aroha, hospitality, generosity, and mutual respect. In doing so, all parties are elevated through the act of giving. In practical terms, this means that the hospitality and generosity of the home people is extended willingly to all who pay others the respect of a visit. There is nobody left behind and no one is forgotten. The capacity to care is also reflected in the law of gifting. Judge Eddie Durie encapsulated that concept in a momentous speech, given at the time of the Te Māori exhibition in September 1986. He talked about hoatu taonga, hoki taonga; a gift given is a gift that comes back, and riro whenua atu, hoki whenua mai; land that is taken is land that must return. The gifting concept affirms a commitment to reciprocity from generation to generation—that if we look after those who need it most now, our children and our grandchildren will be cared for.

As products of the system of power, we must do all we can to remove the conditions of poverty and instability that make a fertile breeding ground for the growth of injustice. But first we need to look to ourselves for the revolution of values that will restore hope in our families that we are all part of the solution, that our families can be transformed into sites of well-being, and that we will truly be working towards the goal that Aotearoa is a great nation because it is a compassionate nation—a nation that cares for its greatest assets, the people, and with the wealth of collective prosperity, for it to be all it can be.

I had the opportunity before coming to the House this afternoon to view a tape of today’s midday news. It carried the interesting spectacle of the Minister of Foreign Affairs from New Zealand, who seemed to have been unable to contain himself in a meeting with Senator John McCain in Washington. I say briefly to the House that I am disappointed that our Minister of Foreign Affairs has seen the continuation of a feud with the New Zealand media as more important than the pursuit of New Zealand’s interests in terms of a better trade and defence relationship with the United States—indeed, more important than a better relationship with the man who may well be the next US president. I remind the Prime Minister today that that is the price she has paid—but it is also the price she is inflicting on other New Zealanders—for the deal she has done to hold her Government in office and herself in the Prime Ministership in offering the very important post of Minister of Foreign Affairs to a man who is clearly not up to the job.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You wouldn’t have done it, would you?

Well, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if he thinks it is amusing that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has insulted one of the most important men in America—a man who is actually singing New Zealand’s praises and singing the praises of a relationship with New Zealand—then he is not fit to be Deputy Prime Minister either, and he knows it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, he didn’t.

He did insult Senator McCain. If Mr Cullen looks at the tape, he will see, as anyone can see, that it was simply an inability of Mr Peters to rise to the challenge of representing New Zealand in a situation where Senator McCain was trying to improve the relationship but Mr Peters was overcome by his desire to get into the gutter with members of the New Zealand news media.

I say, just briefly, on the matter of the report from Mr Ingram received by the House yesterday, that New Zealanders do not know how lucky they are to have a Parliament, a public service, and ministries that are generally free of corruption. I think if we were put alongside virtually any nation in the world, even alongside our near neighbour Australia, we could be said to enjoy a freedom from undue influence and corruption that is the envy of any country in the world. As somebody who has been in this House now for over 18 years, and who had the privilege of being a Minister for 8 years, I tell the House that we should put a very high premium on the freedom from the taint of corruption that this country has. The allegations that were made some months ago against Mr Field were serious allegations, and I do not intend to traverse them in the House today, but I simply say, by way of summary, that the allegations suggested that he profited from the misery of his constituents and that he received a personal benefit from assisting those constituents. I carry no grudge against Mr Field; I quite like him, actually. I have never had an angry exchange with him, and I very much hope that the allegations made against him were not well based. But I tell the Prime Minister today that she has done this House a disservice by not being prepared to look in where Mr Ingram identified as the next likely place for inquiry, and by not giving somebody the opportunity to ask witnesses who would have been able to tell the House definitively whether the allegations against Mr Field were correct.

That leaves every member of this House potentially under a cloud. If the Prime Minister of New Zealand is prepared to accept allegations such as those hanging over a member of Parliament with no resolution, then that is a stain—as John Armstrong said in the New Zealand Herald this morning—not just on this Government but on the reputation of every member of Parliament. I know that the leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, has lodged a complaint on a matter of privilege, which I know I am not allowed to refer to, and I hope that that is the vehicle, if no other vehicle is going to be chosen by the Prime Minister, for this matter to be put to rest once and for all.

I hope any of my fellow MPs who read the front page of the Dominion Post this morning were as horrified as I was by news of the latest booklet teaching parents how to physically discipline their children. I hope those MPs who still think it is a good idea to retain section 59 of the Crimes Act, or to reform it so that the method of violence against children is further defined and refined, might take a quick look at this booklet to get an inkling of the kind of thing they are endorsing.

The most outspoken critics of my member’s bill, Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, have come from Christian organisations, not the Churches themselves. They come from special-interest groups that claim to represent Christianity such as Garnet Milne’s Reformation Testimony, the Maxim Institute, Family First, and Family Integrity. The booklet referred to in the Dominion Post this morning called The Christian Foundations of the Institution of Corporal Correction is a Family Integrity publication written by Craig Smith. What does Family Integrity have to say about the rearing and discipline of our children? “children are not little bundles of innocence: they are little bundles of depravity … and can develop into unrestrained agents of evil unless trained and disciplined. Smacking does so much good for the child, and for you. It deals with all the issues. With older children from perhaps 18 months or 2 years onwards smacking may be a 10 to 15 minutes process. If the child is angry after the smack you have not smacked hard enough. After the smack there are cuddles and prayer.” Finally, Smith goes on to admit: “I do not understand the connection between a physical smack on the bottom and a rebellious spiritual condition of the heart, nor how the first drives out the latter. But the scripture declares it is so, therefore I am obliged to believe and practise it.” Others use, perhaps, more conventional language to justify the use of reasonable force in disciplining their children. Spare the rod and spoil the child, runs the argument. Children need boundaries. Parents need to enforce them. Parental authority must be backed up by the right to use physical force. To them the repeal of section 59 is just another example of political correctness further undermining Christian society, from a secular, out-of-touch Parliament.

But are these voices representative of the wider Christian Church? Perhaps surprisingly, not according to the overwhelming number of submissions we have received from the mainstream Churches of Aotearoa New Zealand. These include submissions from Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Churches of Christ, the Quakers, Wesleyans, and some Catholics. Collectively they are calling for a full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Their counterarguments are based both in theology and in what is actually best practice in parenting. What they are saying is that, theologically speaking, the core of the gospel message is that God is a God of love, not of punishment. God, as heavenly Father, does not punish us as we deserve, but chooses rather to offer us the path of grace and forgiveness. Christian parents should apply the same principles to their children. The authority of Christian parents should not depend on an Old Testament sanction of physical punishment, if one can even be made. Rather, it is founded on love, respect, and relationship. These have to be earned, even by parents, rather than enforced.

I do not believe that the Bible does give a mandate for beating children. I believe that it is up to each of us as MPs to think really hard, no matter what our faith background or non-faith background, about what is going on in our society today, where babies and children are beaten and sometimes killed because parents think it is OK to use physical force against them. I stress that this leaflet talks about using physical force not just against children but against infants and toddlers, and is actually teaching people how to use that force for up to 15 minutes at a time. That message is reinforced by booklets such as the one I have been talking about, and it is also sanctioned by section 59 of the Crimes Act, which states that reasonable force is OK if we are parents and if we use it to punish our children. I call on all MPs in this House, no matter what their political party or faith background, to think deeply about this question, to read the Family Integrity booklet, and to consider what is more important: to bring up our babies and children free from violence, or to continue with a law that actually legitimises its use by people such as the booklet’s author.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.