General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I have to say that the stench of corruption hangs heavily over this Labour Government this week. It does not involve just the honourable Taito Phillip Field. One has to ask what persuaded an Associate Minister of Immigration to make a decision to grant a special direction on work visas to Mr Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm. These are not marginal people. Mr Siriwan had been an overstayer in New Zealand for 8 years. He had been refused a permit twice. He had a wife and two children back in Thailand. His partner Ms Phanngarm had been refused refugee status four times, was an overstayer for 5 years, and was deported from New Zealand.

The Minister claims he did not know that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time he made his decision on 17 June. That is not credible. On 8 June, in Samoa, Mrs Field, Taito Phillip Field’s wife, fronted up to immigration officials in Samoa. She was waving a letter that Taito Phillip Field had written, claiming that the Minister Damien O’Connor had agreed to issue special 2-year work permits to Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm, and also to direct that the 5-year ban on Ms Phanngarm’s coming back to New Zealand should be revoked. When the manager in Apia, Mr James Dalmer, saw a copy of the letter Mrs Field had been waving around, written by the honourable Taito Phillip Field, he immediately, the same day, emailed Wellington. The Immigration Service’s intelligence unit was staggered by what was contained in Taito Phillip Field’s letter, asking whether Mr Field had actually made that decision and whether he was aware of all the information they were aware of about Mr Siriwan working for Taito Phillip Field. That same day, 9 June, here in New Zealand, Mr Tavita from the Department of Labour rang the Minister’s office at 2.41 p.m. to tell the office about the fact that Mrs Field had been waving that letter around in Apia, and about what had been claimed. But the Minister claims he did not know anything about it.

What is more, just a few days before that on 27 May, a compliance officer who had actually been involved in deporting Ms Phanngarm from New Zealand emailed the Minister’s office to warn the Minister’s office about those issues. The officer phoned the Minister’s office on 31 May, after receiving even more information about what Mr Siriwan was up to at Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. That all happened well before the Minister made his decision on 7 June. It is not credible for the Minister to claim he knew nothing of this, at all.

But what makes this even more questionable, and what makes the cloud of corruption even thicker, is that a bloke called Keith Williams, who once employed Mr Siriwan illegally here in New Zealand and who went to Samoa to work with Mr Siriwan on Phillip Field’s house, told an immigration consultant that Taito Phillip Field had talked to Ministers Swain and Goff the day they visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. The Ministers do admit they met the tiler, Mr Siriwan. That guy, Keith Williams, refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry, so Noel Ingram, quite properly, had to ignore that evidence. But why would Mr Williams say that Taito Phillip Field had told him he had had a talk to the Minister? It was either Mr Swain or Mr O’Connor; we cannot blame people for getting Ministers muddled up, because no one knows exactly who the relevant Minister is. But he claims he talked to Mr Swain and that he had got an undertaking that after Siriwan had been out of New Zealand for about 3 months he would then be granted a work visa back in New Zealand. That was what happened!

All I do is invite that member to have the courage to make whatever inference he wants to make, outside of this House, and I will pull the rug out from under his feet so quickly he will not know which country he is in. I invite the member to have the courage to do that, but I know that member will not have the courage because there is no substance. It is part of a smear campaign. The member ought to be ashamed of himself, for this reason. He was a member of Parliament who went up and down the country in 1990, promising to repeal student fees and promising to resign if he did not do so.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to table the Ingram report, which makes it clear that the Hon Phil Goff did visit the Thai tiler at Mr Field’s house in Samoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that frivolous interjections—[Interruption] The member is a very experienced member. He knows that frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are out of order.

I just add for Gerry Brownlee that if he—

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have ruled, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That does not mean that it is an appropriate ruling. When is it considered to be frivolous to ask for the leave of the House?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have 5-minute speeches here. The member is experienced enough to know that he can seek that leave at the end of a 5-minute speech.

I add the invitation to Mr Brownlee that if he wants to make any implication or allegation about my character, he should make it outside the House, if he has the courage to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that to imply that someone lacks courage is a personal reflection and outside the Standing Orders. The member will desist and continue.

I was saying that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD—that is how he signs his letters—went up and down this country promising to repeal student fees. We have a photo of him signing a document at a student union that stated he would resign if he did not repeal the fees. He broke the first promise and he broke the second, so a man of that sort of integrity ought to be careful about challenging the integrity of others.

Then there is the Dr Lockwood Smith who begged a group of visiting American congressmen to provide the funding to run a political campaign against a nuclear-free New Zealand. He did not own up to it, and when the evidence was tabled in the House he still did not own up to it. Let the country make its own judgment about Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD’s integrity. It will come to the same conclusion that I have—he has none.

These National Party members are upset. They have come to the House today fresh from the public relations disaster of the National Party’s annual conference in Christchurch last weekend. We remember the saying of John Cleese: “Don’t mention the war.” Well, the saying at the National Party conference was parallel to that, but it was: “Don’t mention the leadership challenge.” It dominated the whole conference. But Dr Brash broke the rule. On Friday I heard Dr Brash say on Radio New Zealand that three or four malcontents in his caucus were undermining his leadership. That was said by the leader! He owned up to the country that three or four malcontents in the caucus were undermining his leadership. What he did not tell us was that three out of the four were the people sitting closest to him on the front Opposition bench. They all want a go.

The National Party was not taking any chances at its conference. Let us see what the media said about it. Vernon Small wrote in the Dominion Post that it was the most buttoned-down conference in the National Party’s history. He wrote that the workshops and remit sessions were closed to the media. The National Party was not prepared to have the media looking at what it was doing. This is the party that talks about openness and transparency! Even when it is in Opposition it will not let the country know what it is doing. What is more, it did not have faith in its own membership, because, as Vernon Small wrote, members were allowed scarcely any input into the conference debate from the floor.

That was capped off by Dr Brash’s speech. As soon as he had given the speech he did a runner. Normally a leader will front up to the media and answer their questions. When challenged, the spokesman for the “leader” said Dr Brash had a pressing engagement. The media made some inquiries, and do members know what the pressing engagement was? It was lunch! Is it any wonder that John Armstrong wrote in the New Zealand Herald: “it was also a massive vote of no confidence in Dr Brash’s ability to front to the media.” It was a massive vote of no confidence in the ability of the leader, who is never here for this debate, to front up and answer. It was a massive vote of no confidence in that leader. In another independent aspect of the media, the Press stated that no matter how much self-congratulation was going on, it did not change the reality.

One issue stands out in the Ingram report, and it is this: did Mr Field tell the truth to Dr Ingram? That is the reason why the report took so long. There are always two approaches to any inquiry. If one is upfront and tells the truth, an inquiry is soon over. The other path is that of the dissembler—the liar—who obstructs, delays, changes the story, and evades the truth.

So what did Dr Ingram say about the evidence given by Mr Field? In short, did Dr Ingram believe him? Let us take the case of the Thai workers in Samoa. Mr Field denied that he met them. His wife said he did. Dr Ingram concluded, at paragraph 259, that it was not plausible that Mr Field did not meet them. He noted that, at the same time, paint was being hoarded, the house was being equipped with gear, and work was being done on the houses. Is it just coincidence that those Thai workers did not front up to the inquiry? What is Mr Field hiding? Let us take the issue of the house at 51 Church Street. It is a house that Mr Field bought from the Coles. He had work done on it. The house was rented to a Mrs Thaivichit, who allegedly painted the entire inside of the house because she was a friend. Dr Ingram found that “highly unlikely, if not an implausible proposition.” He also said his credulity was stretched further when Mr Field could produce no evidence of repaying a bond—not an invoice or a record of payment. In fact, earlier in the report Dr Ingram said the following about this particular house. He had to assess the candour of Mr Field. Mr Field was interviewed three separate times. At paragraph 293 Dr Ingram stated he had a “degree of concern” about the “unsatisfactory nature of the explanations”. On each occasion a different version was given. When the member of Parliament Mr Colin Moyle gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry, what happened to him? He had to resign, not as a Minister but as a member of Parliament. So I tell Mr Field to take that on board.

Mr Field could not even remember whether he had painted a house. This is what Dr Ingram stated: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” Perhaps Mr Field does so much painting he does not know where he does it, when he does it, or what he does it for. Actually, there is another reason, is there not? It is all about a cover-up—a cover-up of what really happened, a cover-up of the exploitation of cheap labour, and a cover-up of the exploitation of vulnerable people who came to Mr Field for assistance in immigration matters. We have heard from our colleague Dr Smith that there was collusion in this. The Minister of Immigration gave permits to people who had applied for and been refused refugee status not once, not twice, not even three times, but four times. Yet, miraculously, those people received work permits.

We have to ask ourselves whether the stench of corruption is surrounding this administration. It goes right to the top. The Prime Minister has participated completely in this shabby episode. She knows full well that Mr Field is not guilty just of a misjudgment. She knows full well, because she has read the report, that there is much more to this than that. She should be telling Mr Field to take the lesson of Colin Moyle and to do the honourable thing and resign from this House. That is what a former member for Mangere actually did when he gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry back in 1977.

How standards change. We are seeing a Prime Minister who will do anything to protect her power. We in the Opposition all know that she has a one-seat majority. I wonder where that one-seat majority resides. Is it with Mr Field, and is that why he is being protected?

This is a positive contribution, after a long flow of negativity. I will first say that we must remind ourselves that this is the time of te reo Māori. This is the time when we think very diligently and in a very far-sighted fashion about our heritage and our future—something we have not heard from the previous speakers.

💬 Hon Member: What’s the Māori word for corruption?

Oh, I hear Mr Brownlee—the person who recently said that he would offer a friendlier face in relation to the Treaty and in respect of Te Ao Māori. I can just imagine, at this time of te reo Māori, that we have my whanaunga from Ngāti Porou, Parekura Horomia, standing up. He would be likely to say Porourangi is his rangatira. He would be likely to say that Tūwhakairiora is his whare. What would we hear from Mr Brownlee? No, he would say te ingoa o taku whare—the name of his whare—is the Angus Steak House. That type of kōrero has no prospect of fulfilling his vague promises. It is negative. It is not designed to drive forward an agenda that will bring the country together and provide a very forward-orientated approach, unlike our agenda.

That is why it is a great deal of pleasure to accentuate all the positive points about the business review that has been announced up and down the country in halls, schools, RSA clubs, and hotels. People are clapping and they are happy. Very positive and thoughtful things are coming forward. Exporters to the four winds are actively waiting for not only some members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee but also the Minister of Revenue and the Deputy Prime Minister to go and visit them about such ideas. But—[Interruption] In fact, I can see the Opposition members are almost lapping up every word, because it is enlightening when compared with the constant negativity, cynicism, and presentations without humour.

But I did see some humour. I looked at Te Waipounamu recently on television, and was one of the few New Zealanders to pay a wee bit of attention to the various National Party speeches that were lamely given to a very bored crowd. I watched our colleagues from the other side of the House line up, and I saw they were not unlike a group of Muppets. There were no brown Muppets. We know, although it is te reo Māori time, there were no brown Muppets. The one that was there for a very short period of time has since been dispatched and has been long since written off, at the very time that those members say that they will embrace Te Ao Māori and the Treaty. That got me thinking, of course, about who, for example, would be Miss Piggy. No, it will not be a person from South Auckland. Neither did I think that Mr Brownlee would be borrowing Dr Moodie’s dress this morning—no, no. I saw Kermit the frog.

💬 Hon Member: Who was that?

Oh, those members have a great debate amongst themselves, because I know they cannot agree amongst themselves on who their leader should be. They are pouring bile—all of it, of course, completely unwarranted—on the Government side of the House, in an unfortunate attempt to steer our attention away from the very forward-thinking initiatives and agenda-setting ideas we have.

I have been warned, however. In fairness to Mr Brownlee, I must say that my matua Dover Samuels has told me to be very careful before I start to say negative things about the man from Te Waipounamu. Dover Samuels told me that Mr Brownlee will sing better than I could ever sing, and that I will never match him as he delivers his rendition of Meatloaf. I must confess that my matua Dover Samuels has also told me what that member will sing in relation to the aspirations of that human sedative, Dr Brash. He will add to the Elvis Presley song we saw and heard on television, because he will be offering Heartbreak Hotel to Only Fools Rush In. I can see it now.

That is the level of confusion that exists amongst those members. In the absence of any clear ideas or anything interesting in place of the falsehoods and the divisive thoughts they are spreading amongst the Māori Party and other people, they do not have the slightest intention of delivering either a bicultural, modern, progressive view, or even a multicultural view, to our people. That is why, for a long day to come, those members will be lost where they are, in Opposition. There are no contesting or contrasting ideas from them as to how we can lift either business or communities. No, there is just a trail of half-truths, negativity, and poorly conceived and boringly delivered ideas.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Pita Paraone.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot call two Government members one after the other.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have a list in front of me, which has obviously been agreed to, and I have already called the member. Under Speakers’ rulings, once a member has been called, I cannot take the call away.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I say I have no intention of giving up this call. Engari te mea tuatahi e tika ana kia tukuna atu ngā mihi o te Whare nei, nā te mea ko tēnei te wiki mō te reo Māori. Ahakoa ki a au, ko ia wiki o te tau he wā mō te reo Māori ehara mō te tahi wiki anahe. Koia nā te mea nui e hiahia ana te iwi whānui i hakarongo mai i wēnei kōrero, kia kawe. Tēnā tātou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[But firstly it is apt that acknowledgments by this House should be made in Māori, as this is the week for it. For me personally, every week is time for the Māori language, and not just 1 week. That is really the most important thing that Māoridom listening in to these debates would like to happen. Greetings to us all.]

I want to bring our debate to more serious issues. I signal to this House—to those who are here—and to those who are listening to this debate that I am prefacing a contribution that will lead off a very important discussion on a matter that will come before the House later in the day. I refer to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. I do so because I know that the National Party will not allow New Zealand First to have an extra say in the debate, so I am taking this opportunity to do so now.

This bill is not about doing away with the Treaty of Waitangi, as some people in this House would have the people of New Zealand believe. It is about the deletion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation—words that are a later addition to many of our laws; in fact, 33 laws at the moment. There is no reference to the word “principles” in the Treaty itself. In fact, the Treaty is made up of four articles. If the legislation that contains the references to the principles of the Treaty at the moment actually referred to the articles, then my colleague would not be sponsoring such a bill.

Support for the bill will give an opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have a say in the debate on the Treaty. I hope that reason will prevail today when the bill comes before the House, and that support will be given to have it referred to a select committee. To deny that opportunity would be to deny the people of New Zealand, both Māori and Pākehā, the opportunity to debate the pros and cons of a very important bill.

I know that a party in this House will probably seek leave to present its own version of this bill, and I signal to the members of that party that they should make their own luck, put a bill in the ballot box, and hope that it is drawn.

I say to those people who want to deny the New Zealand public the opportunity to have a say in this matter that they should reconsider, and also take on board the point that the principles of the Treaty were never asked for by the people of New Zealand. They were imposed by a particular Government and a particular member of that Government, in order for him to say that it was his contribution to legislation.

I say to this House that it is the responsibility of Parliament and of those of us who are members of this House to make the law. It is not the responsibility of the courts or the lawyers of this land to make the law; it is their job to understand it. In order that they may understand it, the House needs to be certain that the laws it makes are clear. Adding the word “principles” without any definition of it certainly does not make the law clear.

A lot of people are rather scared of this bill. They believe that if it goes any further, the intention will be to remove reference to the Treaty itself from all legislation. That could not be further from the truth. If these principles are so important, I ask members why reference to them is not included in the Education Act.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Good question!

It is a good question. Do I have a good answer? No.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te pēhea koutou e hoa mā. Kia ora Te Reo Māori.

It is Māori Language Week, and I offer that support at the beginning of my speech.

Is it not an irony that on the very day the Government has decided to do away with the principles of good, open, honest Government it has decided also to do away with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not sure those things are connected, but when we look at the motives of these people we cannot be sure they are not. My friend Mr Jones criticised the National Party for having no “brown Muppets” on the front bench. Well, when one has a Brownlee one does not need a “brown Muppet”.

I would love to spend my time talking about the failure of the Labour Government to meet the expectations of the Māori community, but I want to turn to the ruling given to the House today by the Speaker in the case of the honourable Taito Phillip Field. It seems to me that the Government is working on the principle that there is no corruption if there is no corruption—so let us not deal with the issues of Phillip Field and his avaricious ways; let us simply get rid of corruption as an offence for parliamentarians. The Speaker has ruled today that as long as an MP does not engage on behalf of someone else in the House, at a select committee, through the question process, or through an inquiry process in the House, then the way is open to take whatever fee for service the member deems appropriate. Shane Jones, for example, could send a bill to the Angus Steak House for the promotion he gave it in the House this afternoon. He laughs, but we know he is a merciless double-dipper, and I expect that the invoice is on its way.

I ask members to think about the number of times MPs advocate for a business activity, a social enterprise, or any of a range of activities in the New Zealand community that involve interaction with the Government. The Speaker has said that it is OK to hang out a shingle and put a scale of fees on it. That really indicates that the Government knows that Phillip Field was up to no good in his activities in his electorate office. Phillip Field was holding his hand out as often as he could to get pecuniary gain. So I want to know what the Government will do when it finds out that other MPs are acting in the same way. That will not happen, because the overwhelming majority of members of this House conduct their business with the utmost honesty and integrity. I think it is an utter disgrace that the Speaker has not moved to allow Parliament to protect its own integrity. If my comments here are offensive and cause me to be sent to the Privileges Committee for raising the issue against the Speaker, then I welcome that. I welcome it because this House cannot turn a blind eye to the issues left unresolved in the Ingram report.

It is abundantly clear that Mr Field accepted lafo on numerous occasions.

💬 John Key: What’s that?

Lafo is a payment made by someone as a thank you. The report says it was not uncommon for $10 and $20 notes to be left at the electorate office for Mr Field. One of these lafo was $500.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: It’s culture.

Mr Swain, one of the Ministers who went on the “Field trip” to Samoa—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Did he?

Yes, he went on Phillip Field’s field trip. He went out to the house, saw the tiler, shook his hand, and asked him how he was going. He said that if the tiler made a nice job of the house and Phillip wrote a nice letter he would give the tiler a work permit for New Zealand. And the tiler knew it would happen, because Mr Goff—the then Minister of Foreign Affairs—was there. We all know what a friendly chap he is. He said the same. This is a cover-up of corruption of the worst kind.

Here we are again, with the National Party mired in speculation about not whether it will change its leader but when. [Interruption] Cries of disdain are coming from the Opposition. But these are not my views. The Dominion Post cartoon by Tom Scott on 22 July features a very attractive John Key. Tom Scott obviously likes him more than he likes Bill English, who is not drawn quite so nicely. It shows Dr Brash walking off into the wilderness and the two struggling pretenders to the throne fighting each other. We have the ruthless John Key with his arm around Bill English’s neck. The caption has Bill English saying: “Let me stab Don in the back, John and I’ll make you my deputy …”. But John says: “Sorry Bill, I don’t trust you. I’ll stab Don and you can be my deputy …”.

Members should listen to this. While National is mired in endless disputes about when it will replace its leader, the Government is setting the agenda. This week the Government has announced the most significant reform of business tax policies in a long, long time. The highlights include proposals to drop the corporate tax rate from 33 percent to 30 percent, which would match the Australian corporate tax rate and improve the competitiveness of New Zealand business. We want to grow the cake, not squabble about how that cake should be cut up. We want to grow it. We are doing that with support from our confidence and supply partners New Zealand First and United Future. They agree that reducing the rate of company taxation to the Australian rate of 30 percent is good for New Zealand business. They know, as we do, that New Zealand businesses already have a number of advantages over Australian businesses. For example, we do not have a number of their taxes. We do not have stamp duties, a general capital gains tax, or payroll tax, as Australia does.

Our tax rates for waged workers are lower than those in Australia for people on average earnings. In fact, New Zealand’s income tax rates for a couple with two children and on the average wage are the fifth-lowest in the OECD. For a single person without children and on average earnings our income tax rates are the third-lowest in the world—three places below Australia’s already. In addition to a proposal to reduce the company tax rate to 30 percent per annum, which would come at a cost of approximately $540 million in forgone tax revenue each year, the Government is also targeting some things it wants to promote to encourage businesses to grow and to spend more on research and development, and to give them tax advantages for export market development expenditure.Those measures could cost up to $350 million or more. We are also reviewing depreciation rates—they may change. We are also changing the way in which businesses can write off their assets, rather than having to carry them forward and depreciate them.

This a Government with vision. We are transforming New Zealand’s economy. While the National Party is mired in controversy about not whether but when it will replace its leader, we are getting on and improving New Zealand’s economy by growing the cake so that we all have a bigger slice of it. In relation to other things we have already done, let us not forgot that $1 billion worth of measures were incorporated in last year’s Budget to the benefit of the business sector, including increasing depreciation rates, changing provisional tax dates, and reducing fringe benefit tax rates. We have increased research and development investment already by 65 percent since 1999, and we are increasing that investment by a further $100 million over the next 4 years. That is in addition to the stimulation that will be caused to research and development through the tax credits proposed in this business review.

These are very important changes that will stimulate the business sector and help transform New Zealand’s economy.

I want to join with my fellow members of the National Party who have stood today to express their concern about the Government’s atrocious handling of the Taito Phillip Field allegations, and about the considerable stench of corruption that now hangs over this Government. It is a Government that has been prepared to ignore the very clear facts of this case: that a Minister used his position not only to get an advantage for himself and his family but in a way that was a clear breach of the rules of ministerial conflict of interest. Similarly, it is, in many ways, a corrupt practice to be seeking to benefit directly in return for favours.

I draw the House’s attention to a number of emails that suggest the previous Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, knows a lot more than he is letting on. Those issues go very close to that Minister, and they go extremely close to his office. I want the House to note these comments from the Ingram report. The report states that O’Connor told him “that he did not know of allegations that Mr Field had Thai people living in, and working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa at the time he made that decision.” We have to test what information is around that remark to indicate that there might be something alternative.

We know from Ingram’s own report that the public servant Mr Dalmer—someone who has no reason to be forgetful or frugal with the truth—said he telephoned the senior private secretary of the Minister, a Ms Scotland, and discussed with her the contents of a number of pieces of information that had been sent to the intelligence unit. Mr Tavita’s telephone records were given to the inquiry, and they revealed there had been a 5-minute telephone discussion on Ms Scotland’s direct dial number on 9 June. Ms Scotland said she did not recall being told the information in a 5-minute telephone conversation. Further, we know that even though Ms Scotland, the Minister’s private secretary, said she believed she first became aware of the allegations during a phone call from Murray Gardiner, it is clear that she said that after discussion with Mr Gardiner she “went straight into Mr O’Connor’s office and advised him of the details of the conversation. He expressed concern and was not aware of this information …”. But Ms Scotland remains confused about when she had that conversation.

Here, I think, is a very important piece of information that goes to the heart of who is motivated to tell the truth in this case. This is what the public servant Dalmer said: “Mr Dalmer spoke with Ms Scotland on 28 June 2005, being 27 June 2005 in Samoa.” Members should remember that this is a public servant who took notes of his conversation with the Minister’s closest political aide. His notes of this conversation state: “Knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito has had these people working for him—Damian [sic] knew that before he made the decision—tight labour market has been a factor …”. That is what Dalmer noted after his conversation. They are notes of what the Minister’s closest political aide is reported to have said: “Knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito has had these people working for him—Damian [sic] knew that before he made the decision—tight labour market has been a factor …”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please use members’ full names.

I am quoting, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Dalmer said he had “no independent recollection of the conversation other than what he had recorded in his file note.”

Following on from that member, the Hon Tony Ryall, I remind him that I have a very good memory and I remember the names of all of the people who made representations to me. This Government listens to business. When we talk business, we do not exclude the people who work for the owners of business and we do not say the issues are the same at both ends of town. We know that most of our businesses are small, and we need to help them grow. We do not talk down to businesses like the National Party does—that is, if it deigns to talk to them at all.

Where are the speeches from the Opposition spokesperson on small business and the Opposition spokesperson on commerce? There has hardly been a word from them since the election last year. It is no wonder the National Party wants to sell its women MPs—they are not doing their job; that is why it wants to sell them. Business people are sick to death of the Opposition MPs, whose personal attacks masquerade as political debate. One message that business people have asked me to bring to this Parliament is for those who are not prepared to debate the issues but want only to debate the personalities, and it is that they should pull their heads in. Not one of the business people I have met out on the road commented on any of the contributions made by the Opposition spokespeople to the debate on the very business-friendly environment this Government introduced while loosening the shackles of the Employment Contracts Act to enable New Zealand workers to start to catch up on conditions that other countries take for granted, like paid parental leave and 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The National Party has no policy. I listened to John Key speak to the Canterbury Manufacturers Association. He was asked what National’s policy was. He said: “I can’t tell you that yet. We’re a long way away from an election.” So at least National members now know we will go full term. But what he did say was: “You can trust me, because I care.” This is a money market dealer saying he cares! The only difference between a gambler and a money market trader is that a gambler is a money market trader who has lost his or her edge. Now we know why John Key has come to Parliament.

The National Party cannot stand the reality that we have a Minister of Finance who runs a tight ship so that this generation and future generations can benefit from his stewardship of the economy. National, on the other hand, was willing to steal from the future in order to win a general election. I say shame on the National Party. Dr Cullen ranks as one of the best Ministers of Finance New Zealand has ever had. That is the same status accorded to our Prime Minister: one of the best. And that is just what National Party supporters say about them. Our people—Labour people—say they are definitely the best.

The Opposition cannot stand the fact that our leadership is so confident and so good. Its president told people at its conference to follow the leader. What did they say? They asked: “Which way did he go?”, and that is what they are still asking. They are asking not just which way he went but who it should be. That is why they chose Elvis Presley. He is shaken and he is rattled, but when will he be rolled? That is the question the National Party conference has challenged us to ask.

On the business side of the House, Michael Cullen and Peter Dunne released a business tax review yesterday that has already caused those people who said it was only the headline rate that mattered to think again. They have been confronted with a document that lays out choices. The word I am already hearing back from the business sector is “investment”. Investment is what matters if we are to transform the economy—investment in new technology, in research and development, in innovative staff training, and in developing our export markets. It is a further building block, because we are not starting from a zero base; we are building on what we have delivered already.

There were over $1 billion of changes last year in the Budget, including increasing depreciation rates and reducing fringe benefit tax. I think one of the points that keeps getting overlooked is how much research and development has grown in this country since we have been in Government. Today 65 percent more research and development is happening in New Zealand than was happening under a National Government.

On 17 January 1997 a Mr Siriwan slipped into this country as a visitor. He arrived as a visitor and was meant to leave New Zealand 1 week later on 24 January 1997. That illegal immigrant has hidden from authorities until quite recently, and during that time he has been aided and abetted by one former Minister of the Crown and one current member of Parliament. The result of the recent inquiry by Mr Noel Ingram QC—which cost taxpayers $500,000—leaves more questions unanswered than it possibly attempts to answer.

The question I want this House to answer honestly is whether Taito Phillip Field benefited from the services of Mr Siriwan. This is a very simple question. I have no doubt in my mind that he benefited considerably from the services of that man—and nor did Noel Ingram have any doubt, which is more important. Anybody who has bothered to read the report—[Interruption]—and Jill Pettis will not have read the report because there are no pictures in it—knows that Noel Ingram continually stated throughout that he doubted the evidence he was receiving not only from Mr Field but from Mrs Field.

This is a very serious matter of alleged corruption. In question time today, I watched as Labour members—one and all—hung their heads in shame and attempted to dodge the real questions that were put by Opposition members of Parliament.

I will take time to comment on the most incredible Speaker’s ruling that I have ever heard delivered in my time in Parliament—and if this get me before the Privileges Committee, so be it. Standing Order 400 states: “Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following:”, and paragraph (j) states: “as a member, accepting fees for professional services rendered by the member in connection with proceedings in the House or at a committee:” It seems to me that the Hon Margaret Wilson said today that if I were to come into this House and raise a question on the floor of the House or at a select committee, and in return for raising that question collect a service fee of, say, $1,000, then I may well be guilty of contempt. But if in my electorate office someone were to approach me and ask me to make a call—perhaps to the Canterbury District Health Board—to see whether I could get that person moved up the waiting list for an urgent operation, and if that person were to offer me $1,000, then, as I interpret the ruling given today, I could accept that money and not be found in contempt of Parliament. I think that is just outrageous! Members on this side of the House would not dare to consider accepting service fees for work done in a constituency office. But did Taito Phillip Field do that? In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that he did.

I want to refer to various parts of the report of Noel Ingram QC. Members have only to look at any part of the report to acknowledge that Mr Siriwan certainly made a trip to Samoa to prepare what is obviously a lovely beachfront house in preparation for Mr Taito Field’s retirement. Mr Siriwan was there for a long period of time doing some tiling work which, according to Mr Ingram, he subsequently priced at about $14,000. That raises the question of why Mr Siriwan would do that work for Mr Field unless he was expecting something in return. This report is absolutely riddled with questions that require answering.

An issue of concern to New Zealanders right through the country is the difficulty and the expense of paying for local government. We are seeing exorbitant rates demands from local bodies throughout New Zealand. Despite the concern of local body politicians at the last election, Auckland residential rates will rise by 13.8 percent, on average. In the last 3 years Wellington City Council’s rates have increased by 20.5 percent, Christchurch City Council’s by 19.4 percent, and Hamilton City Council’s by 15.2 percent.

I ask members to think about how people on fixed incomes—particularly the elderly—are supposed to cope with those outrageous increases. Indeed, just last week I was contacted by a pensioner whose rates bill for a house he bought in 1960 is now $2,800. When he remonstrated with his local council about how he was to cope, they told him not to worry and to just sell his house. The man had lived in this house for 48 years. It is his house. The Sheriff of Nottingham would surely blush if, having extorted money out of the poor peasants at that rate, he then told them to sell their houses when they said they could no longer pay. The Sheriff of Nottingham would not do that.

Helen Clark shows no interest in this issue, whatsoever. By the way—this is public information—the rates bill on her house is $1,600. I ask members to consider that the New Zealand Prime Minister’s rates are $1,600, and a poor pensioner on a fixed income—a very, very low income—has rates of $2,800. What is fair and equitable about that? I say to the House that it is this Parliament that gives local councils the authority and the power to strike those rates. So it is our responsibility—

💬 Jill Pettis: Does the member support the rates rebate policy?

There is old squeak. Old squeak is back in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that members of Parliament must be addressed by their correct names.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mrs Pettis is not speaking from her usual seat. Members should interject from their usual place. So she could go back to her position and interject from there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am ruling on the matter. The member knows that that is in the Speakers’ Rulings. I realise she is probably acting as whip at the moment.

Not to worry—she could be all the way down at Te Papa and it would still be offensive and jarring to one’s ears. That member has a horrible, horrible squeak—and God knows, I can see why she lost her seat in Wanganui.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I thought you said you were going to behave nicely when you came back from your dancing.

I am being very nice. I just wish Labour would behave nicely and set some standards for a change, for this country. So I say to the House that it is Parliament that gives local government the power to strike rates, and therefore it is Parliament that has to take responsibility. We cannot duck the issue.

I am sorry to say that as I do the numbers I understand that it will be New Zealand First that will be responsible for the fact that the high rates bill that pensioners in particular will be confronted with will not get debated and discussed properly in this House. New Zealand First, despite its promises to the people of New Zealand, will be voting against my Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill, because it has a sweetheart deal with Helen Clark.

I have given up on the Labour Party. It does not care about the working people. It does not care about pensioners. It does not care about ratepayers. Day in and day out we see that Labour cares only about its power. It cares only about its titles. It cares only about its perks. It cares only about what it can rip off the most disadvantaged people who come to these shores. That is what we have come to expect from Labour. But even I am shocked by New Zealand First, because I thought it had a concern about rates and would want to debate the issue in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But, no, it sold out for the baubles of office. That is what New Zealand First has done.

What a disappointing contribution that was from the leader of ACT. I thought I heard him say, when he was off around the country dancing with the stars, that he would be kinder and gentler. I think those were the words he said. I thought he said he had had a bit of a change of heart, having gone out and mixed with some real people. What a shame we heard about that. There is an old expression about the pot calling the kettle black. Mr Hide is always going on about people who use taxpayers’ money for purposes different from those it is supposed to be used for. Well, I wonder who paid the air fares while Mr Hide was running up and down the country dancing with the stars. I wonder whether Mr Hide would tell Parliament who paid for that. When Mr Hide was having days away dancing with the stars, I wonder who paid for that. I bet it was the taxpayer. That is an example of the old saying of the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course, the National Party should also listen to that old saying. It has been going on about deals done and services rendered that are not declared. I remember the Exclusive Brethren at the last election rendering services to the National Party, but did the National Party declare these services? No, it did not. In fact, through most of the election campaign National members denied the services even existed. Finally, they said they did remember them—that they did know about them. Lo and behold, when we look at the returns, we do not see “Exclusive Brethren, services rendered” on National’s election returns. Oh, no! So I think the old expression about the pot calling the kettle black is something that both ACT and National members in this House should remember.

One of the big things about a democracy such as we have in New Zealand is that it needs a very strong, healthy Opposition. Unfortunately, New Zealand has the National Party in Opposition. An Opposition always needs a strong leader. Unfortunately, Don Brash is the current leader of the National Party. I wonder how many National Party members actually believe that Don Brash will lead them into the next election. I wonder how many of them genuinely believe it. I think most of them do not, and the few that do simply are not listening to what the rest of New Zealand is saying. There was a time when the National Party was a strong party—a party of principle, philosophy, and policy—and had strong leaders, such as Rob Muldoon, Keith Holyoake, and Jim Bolger. They were strong leaders. I did not agree with virtually anything any of them ever said, but they were strong leaders and commanded respect in New Zealand. What about Don Brash? Can members pick out the odd member from this lot: Rob Muldoon, Keith Holyoake, Jim Bolger, Don Brash? Well, one would have to say it was Don Brash. The point is that he will not be the leader of the National Party as it goes into the next election. There is no question about that.

Last week the National Party had its showcase—its national conference—at which its leader was supposed to outline leadership and policy. Instead, we got a whole pile of waffle from him. He did not give out one new policy thought or idea. He said he was planning to be the next Prime Minister, leading a National Government—end of story. I wonder how many leaders who are actually leaders have to say that. Can members hear Richie McCaw saying that? Richie McCaw would never say: “Look at me, look at me—I’m the real leader. Don’t worry, I’m the real leader—end of story.” Would we ever hear Helen Clark saying that? Of course we would not. The reason we would not hear Richie McCaw and Helen Clark saying that is that they are real leaders. They do not have to go around telling everybody that they are leaders and that they will be leaders for the next couple of years. They do not have to do that, because everybody assumes their leadership.

Then, right at the end of National’s conference, the leader had to dash away to attend an important engagement and could not front up to the media. He failed in the single biggest thing. He is not a leader. The National Party is hopeless and will not lead the Government after the next election, or for a very, very long time after.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.