General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In a strong democracy the Government proposes policy; the Opposition opposes it and proposes some of its own. In 7 years this Government has proposed and implemented far-reaching policies to transform our economy, to support our families, and to build national identity and pride. In 7 years the National Opposition has opposed, opposed, and opposed and there has been little sign of it proposing any policy, or even a constructive debate on policy in this House. In fact, it has not been able to propose a full policy at any time in those 7 years.

Let us take National’s flagship policy at the last election—tax cuts. That was its flagship policy, but even then it was not a full policy, because National refused to tell the people of New Zealand what it would cut to give tax cuts to New Zealanders. It refused to tell the people of New Zealand whether it would cut our health services, our education services, the services to our elderly people. National is so confused on its own tax policy that last night it even voted against a modest tax cut in the KiwiSaver! So one day National is for tax cuts; the next day it votes against one. This is a one-sided Opposition. It knocks and knocks and knocks, it pulls things down, it gives misinformation and half-truths, and it engages in shadowy dealings.

Today I want to give this House two examples of how this Government’s policies have worked over the past 7 years. I start with older New Zealanders, because older New Zealanders are important to this Government. We have put a lot of effort into ensuring that we look out for our senior citizens. Where did we start? We started right back at the formation of this Government when we reversed the National Government ’s cuts on superannuation. We then went on to increase superannuation for all the older people of New Zealand. They had had shabby treatment for 9 years under a National Government. We then said we would phase out asset testing; something that was brought in by Ruth Richardson, and something the National Party was still supporting at the last election. We then said we would bring in—and we have brought in—cheaper doctors’ visits for our older folk and cheaper prescriptions. They were among the first to get those cheaper visits. We increased the number of knee and hip operations by around 20,000 because we know that those people are the people who need them most. We brought in income-related rents for those old folk who could not afford the rents they were paying. We have introduced a rates rebate for older New Zealanders—up to $500 off their rates. We made changes to their drivers’ licences, and we are making communities safer. Those are things we have done for older New Zealanders in quite a short time.

Let us look at another area: rebuilding the infrastructure of this country. This includes not only capital assets but the human assets as well: hospitals from Invercargill to Kaitāia; police stations in small places such as Te Kaha; or the big police station at the Counties-Manukau hub. We have built more houses. We have put huge investment into road and rail. We even bought back Air New Zealand so we could keep a national airline. We bought back the rail so there could be a rail corridor.

We have invested in the people of New Zealand. We have invested in more nurses, more doctors, more radiation therapists, and more dental therapists. Let us just talk about dental therapists for one moment. Tony Ryall told New Zealanders that we do not have enough of them—we do not have enough dental therapists to do our children’s teeth. Why do we not have enough? National closed all the training schools in the 1990s, so there were no dental therapists being trained. We have restored that.

We have more teachers, more people on border control, more front-line caseworkers, more corrections workers, and so on. The National Party criticises that investment into human capital. The people of New Zealand said they wanted that investment, and we have put it in. I would like to compare that with the National Party and the things that it has done over the last 7 years: its members oppose, spend their time in Parliament accusing everybody else of dirt, sleaze, and corruption, but forget about their own actions.

I want to talk today about one of the biggest rip-offs that has occurred in New Zealand for some time. The rip-off is so large that, to coin a phrase, no one seems to want to talk about the elephant in the room. It has seen thousands of New Zealanders lose a significant amount of money. It has placed the jobs of hundreds of New Zealand workers at risk. It threatens an iconic New Zealand manufacturer. In the 7 years I have been here, I have heard a number of speeches about how beneficiaries and the poor are ripping off the system. A number of MPs in this House get on their high horses at times and attempt to expose the wickedness of beneficiaries for failing to report overpayments from Work and Income of a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars, as a scandal of national significance. So why are we all pretending that the $200 million ripped off New Zealand shareholders and workers by Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners did not happen? Two hundred million dollars is the figure that a number of reputable business journalists have calculated has been expropriated from Feltex before, during, and after its 2004 initial public offering. Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, based in Delaware, paid $19.5 million for Feltex in 1997 when it bought the company from the British-based firm BTR Nylex. BTR Nylex had bought Feltex from the statutory manager of Equiticorp in 1989—remember them?

Most of us do remember that Feltex was raided by Equiticorp in the 1980s and that the head of Equiticorp, Allan Hawkins, was eventually convicted and jailed for fraud. Credit Suisse then created 120 million shares in 2004, which it subsequently floated in the initial public offering at between $1.70 and $1.95 a share. Now trading for only 10c to 12c a share, these shares are worth less than $15 million. So around $200 million has disappeared, expropriated from mum, dad, and institutional shareholders, and from Feltex workers—those who created the wealth in the first place. Most of what has been expropriated was taken by faceless merchant bankers from Zurich and their Delaware subsidiary. How did this happen? How can we stop it happening again? Who is accountable for this expropriation, and what are the consequences for those firms and individuals? In New Zealand we have a Securities Commission. It tells us that its vision is “that investors can have confidence in New Zealand’s securities markets so that the markets increasingly attract investment from New Zealand and overseas.”

I wrote a letter to the Securities Commission on 9 August to ask it what had happened, and asked it to undertake an investigation. On 25 August the commission released a statement saying that it found “no breaches of the securities laws in the prospectus”, and that “no further action will be taken in regard to these matters.” What a whitewash! So now, for the second time in recent years, the proud iconic Kiwi-made company of Feltex has been ripped off by the merchant bankers. But no one wants to know.

So what happens now? I know that shareholders are determined to seek redress for this rip-off. We in this House should do what we can to help them, but we also need to be concerned about the future of Feltex too. We know that there are currently two bids in for the purchase of Feltex. There is a risk that the green light could be given to a foreign takeover bid for this company without anyone in the chain of approval comparing the merits of an alternative locally owned rescue offer. Both the Australian firm, Godfrey Hirst and the Turner brothers, Craig and Graeme, who own Sleepyhead, have made bids for Feltex, and shareholders are expected to consider the Hirst offer in late September. I am told that the Hirst bid is also required to go to the Overseas Investment Commission for approval. But I am also told that the Overseas Investment Commission can only consider the alleged net benefits to New Zealand of the Hirst takeover in isolation, and cannot seek to assess whether the rival offer from the Turners delivers greater net benefits to New Zealand.

My own reading of the Overseas Investment Commission guidelines suggests that if there were a will, the Overseas Investment Commission could find a way to judge the net benefit of the rival bids. Dr Cullen’s 1 August 2005 ministerial directive lists among the objectives that the Overseas Investment Commission can use, that it should assess the benefits received from overseas investment applications on the basis of benefit to New Zealand as a whole. Also, the Overseas Investment Commission must ensure that the value of sensitive New Zealand assets is recognised and enhanced by an overseas owner. The Green Party believes that it is essential that at some point in the process the foreign bid is put on the table and weighed against the merits of the locally owned counteroffer.

Today is the day Helen Clark lost control of the Labour Party and the Labour caucus. Today is the day she got rolled over by those in that caucus who are sick of her dictatorial ways. Today is the day she decided, even though the public of this country know she has a member in her caucus who should not be in this House, that she has to tough it out if she wants to hold on. Last night Mr Field was going—gone for all money. In this morning’s paper the Pacific Island division of the Labour Party were backing him, on the one hand, as an individual, but, on the other hand, saying he had to go because his behaviour was unacceptable.

What happened in the few hours between the printing of this morning’s paper and the time we came into the House this afternoon? Well, I think that the chairman of the group of Labour MPs known to be on the managed exit list met with Mr Field and said: “Let’s tough it out—let’s draw a line in the sand and let’s force this Prime Minister to accept that she cannot dictatorially remove any one of us from Parliament.” So Mr Fairbrother, calling on all of his legal skills, advised Mr Field that although it was patently clear that Mr Field had been up to no good and that the whole country believed he was not fit to be in Parliament, he should defy the Prime Minister and force her to back him. That is what we saw today—the humiliation of Helen Clark and the end of her formidable ability to ride over the top of issues. That is the end of the Labour Government; that is the chink in the armour that will see it all unpeel and go out the back door. I cannot believe that Labour members are going to go back into the electorates, around the public speaking circuit, and look New Zealanders in the eye and say that Mr Field is not a problem, that Mr Field has done nothing wrong, and that Mr Field has every right to be in Parliament.

I have one question for the Government: how many other members in this House have had the Parliamentary Service turn up at their office and stick up signs telling constituents that they do not need to pay for services? Come on, let us have a hands up. Let members put their hands up. Let us see who else in this Parliament has had the Parliamentary Service come in and post posters around the office that state that constituents do not need to pay for services. The question is why that happened in Mr Field’s case. What was it, as far back as 2003, that forced the Parliamentary Service to take that most unusual step? What the Parliamentary Service, Helen Clark, and all of the Labour members know is that Mr Field has had his hand out and has been lining his pocket at the expense of his constituents for a very long time. For Helen Clark to stand up today and say that he has done nothing wrong is a total disgrace—but it is nothing we should not expect of her, given her long record of disrespect for the law of this country.

We have seen Mr Field put out this extraordinary press release. He has sat down with the spin merchants from the ninth floor and decided he will just deny everything. Today in the House, my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith managed to get David Cunliffe, the Minister of Immigration, to accept that Mr Field sought a Samoan work permit for Sunan Siriwan in February 2005, but that he told the Ingram inquiry he knew nothing of this until some time later, in May 2005. We see today in this junky little press release the delusion that Mr Field is still operating under. This man should not be in Parliament. He will break the Labour Party. He has broken Helen Clark.

We have listened to some wayward prattle about the leadership of the Labour Government. Helen Clark will go down in history as being one of the finest and most decisive leaders, and as leading a party that knows who its leader is. There is no guessing and no ballot-box running on who should be the leader. There is no ballot-box pool, as National members play. I see one, two, three, four National members: it is the Don and Gerry show, the John and Bill show—they are all vying for the leadership. That tells us that the National Party is wayward.

That tells us that National members are grasping at straws when they try to dominate these sessions and prattle on about race-based funding. They need lessons in history. In the 1990s who brought in race-based funding? Who wrote and developed the weightings about Māori specifically? The National Government did. It put a lot of time into ensuring there was a race-based focus.

This Government is quite clear. We are going to address issues like obesity and smoking, and whatever else. And some of us have to try harder! I remind members that this Government, along with Māori, is dramatically moving people from dependency to simple development—and there is a difference. Our tax incentives are about remembering that there are all sorts of levels of people in this country—in different income-band levels and in different situations. Some of them are poor, and some are more well-off. The incentives that Sue was talking about are created by those people. What is that about? It is about recognising Māori potential. It is building talents, knowledge, and skills so that we do compete.

It is clear that Māori are strong in their culture and in their tikanga, and the nation watched that last week with the passing of our Arikinui. People watched that and saw there was a strong continuum of the culture, they bought into it, and they recognised the window of opportunity to be serious about national identity. They saw the opportunity of understanding that this country does have a culture that belongs to it. We have listened to some redneck nonsense trying to put people agin people, when this Government is serious about getting Māori going forward. It is about knowledge and it is about better use of their asset base. A lot of Pākehā companies and other people understand that Māori do have money and are getting better at managing their assets, and those people want to be in.

This is critical and the Government has been serious about a whole lot of issues. Unemployment is at its lowest in 24 years. When we came into office after the 1990s, Māori unemployment was 26 percent. It is now running at 11 percent. Is that not a difference? Māori men and women are living, on average, an extra 8 years. Is that not progress? The Government certainly cannot lay claim to that. But in relation to schools, we have put thousands of teachers into the education system while we have been in Government in the last 6 years. Adding 455 extra teachers next year is no mean feat. Building the police force is no mean feat. There are a whole lot of issues that Māori are alongside.

There is no doubt that Māori are a renewed people. The contribution that Māori make to New Zealand and internationally is substantial. That some people want to scratch a bad itch and try to put people against people is a real sad state of affairs.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Where did the member get that hat?

I remind the member that a Labour-led Government, as it continues over the next 5 to 10 years, will be here pushing and developing, because New Zealanders are living what this Government is doing with them. They are living that and they are very, very clear on it. They are not trying to pitch people against people and take extreme positions in the sense of families young and old. What is that about—families young and old? We have different demographics, we have Treaty settlements coming through, and we have people trying to put communities agin each other, as we have heard today. We heard Mr Brownlee accusing Mr Field of all sorts of things. There are members opposite who have pushed people down stairs and who have done naughty things, and they never got sorted out until the allegations were proved.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to let the House know that should Mr Parekura Horomia wish to take some extra time to give his support to the honourable Taito Phillip Field, we would not object.

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

Oh, sorry.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising it.

Today Helen Clark has led Labour to an absolutely new low in standards. Today she told New Zealand that it is an acceptable standard for Labour members in this Parliament not to tell the truth to the immigration authorities of another country, or not to tell the truth to an official inquiry set up by the Prime Minister of this country. Taito Phillip Field lied either to the authorities of the Samoan Government or to the Ingram inquiry. It cannot be both ways. He cannot have told the truth to both of them. He must have been dishonest to one or the other, yet that is acceptable to Helen Clark and her Labour Government here in New Zealand. This Labour Government will wallow in the stench of corruption over the next few months as it clings to its one-vote majority in this Parliament. It is prepared to tolerate any corrupt practice in order to hang on to that one-vote majority.

The statement released by Taito Phillip Field today is a stunning statement. It insults the intelligence of New Zealanders. In the statement that he released today, Taito Phillip Field says that he never paid below what he understood to be fair market rates for work. He states: “I contracted the work and paid what I understood to be fair market rates for the work.” At 51 Church Street—a property owned by Mr Field—Ingram found that he paid less than a third of the market rate for the work done there. At 2A Prangley Avenue, which was the address of another house that Mr Field owned, he paid a quarter of the market rate for the work that was done.

Phillip Field goes on to state: “Dr Ingram’s report makes no adverse finding against my honesty and integrity.” What a joke! Despite Dr Ingram spending months and months on his inquiry—being paid almost half a million dollars in taxpayers’ money—he was unable to find out who painted the entire interior of Taito Phillip Field’s house at 51 Church Street in 2004. One would think that if Taito Phillip Field was being honest he would tell Noel Ingram who painted the entire interior of his house. Would that not be the honest thing to do? But, despite months of inquiry, Noel Ingram could not find out who painted the interior of the house. Taito Phillip Field told Noel Ingram that he might have done it. I can accept that a person cannot remember all of the details, after a period of, say, 18 months, about exactly when and on what days a painting job might have been done. But, having done a wee bit of painting myself, I know there is no way in the world a human being with an IQ above 10 could possibly forget whether he or she had painted the entire interior of a house. It is not possible. Phillip Field simply was dishonest with Noel Ingram.

Noel Ingram could not find out who painted 73 Blake Road—another house owned by Taito Phillip Field—in 2004. Why could he not find that out? It was because Taito Phillip Field would not tell him who had painted it. Is that honest? That is the standard that Labour believes is acceptable for Labour MPs. They can lie to the immigration authorities in Samoa and tell them that an applicant for a work visa will work for them, then claim to an inquiry set up by the New Zealand Government that, no, no, the applicant was not working for them at all. They can refuse to tell Noel Ingram, who is undertaking an official inquiry, who painted their house.

It gets worse, though, in this Labour Government. When it comes to Taito Phillip Field’s claim that he never sent Mr Siriwan to Samoa to work on his house, it is just fascinating. Obviously Sunan Siriwan is an unusual man—he takes his tile-cutting equipment with him when he goes on holiday. When he arrived in Samoa he had his tile-cutting equipment with him! Taito expects us to believe that kind of dishonesty.

To demonstrate to the House the level of honesty that Labour now expects of its members of Parliament, I wish to table an email sent from Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial secretary to his electorate office requiring a new employee in his electorate office to share her salary with Maxine Field, Phillip Field’s wife, and, when queried by Mr Field’s electorate office about that order, a further email saying: “Oh well, it’s as requested by MP.”

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is clear you are wishing to table. You did not need the lead-in words. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate today. It is actually rather interesting to follow Dr the Hon—as he insists on being called, which is an unusual title in this House—Lockwood Smith.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No, he doesn’t, at all. He is very happy to be just called Lockwood Smith.

No, no. He is the only doctor in this House who insists on being called Dr the Hon. Everybody else is called the Hon Dr. However, the issue is not about Dr Smith’s title; the issue is about integrity. He has been raising it. Well, let us look at integrity. Let us think back just a little to 1990. I was a member of Parliament in 1990—unfortunately not in 1991, as I am sure Dr Smith is about to remind me. I fought an election campaign where blatant lies were being told, where the Opposition of the day, including Dr Smith, gave absolute guarantees that things—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: No ifs, no buts.

“No ifs, no buts, no maybes”—cast-iron guarantees written in blood.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document showing that the stated surplus of the Government in 1990 was $59 million. I also seek leave to table a document showing, in 1991, that that was a complete lie told by the then Labour Minister of Finance, David Caygill, and the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Mike Moore.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should not interrupt the speaker for that purpose, but leave has been sought to table two documents. Is there any objection? There is.

I say to the member that some of us could also cast our minds back to the shambles that Labour inherited in 1984 when it came in after a National Government. It was an absolutely deceptive mess left for the incoming Labour Government in 1984. We inherited that mess but moved the country along from it.

I look at issues like integrity. Dr Smith interrupted me when I said that some of us had to fight an election campaign where impossible promises were being made. We were actually fighting a campaign where students had been told there would be no fees, where students had been told there were absolute cast-iron guarantees, and where we had a whole bunch of issues that were plainly lies—and we said so at the time—and then later were proven to be untrue. We had to fight a campaign where we challenged the issues. Our ads were taken off television because there was no proof then that what was being promised would not happen. We are in a similar situation now, I suspect, where an Opposition that does not have policy has its members out there saying National will do this or that, etc., etc., and contradicting each other and doing all sorts of on-the-hoof policy making. We are now in the position where there is no policy from the Opposition. It has had 7 years.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: One example.

There are lots of examples, but let us have a look at the flip-flop on mainstreaming, for instance, prior to the last election, where we had Dr Brash on one occasion saying something about mainstream people and Mr Brownlee on another occasion saying something completely different. So these are issues that we as Government MPs—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop telling lies.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, you are not to imply that another member is telling lies.

Certainly, I am prepared to table the quote if Mr Brownlee would like me to, but let us go on. Let us talk about what is actually happening.

Let us look at some of the achievements. KiwiSaver—we said we would do it; we are doing it. The bill is before the House, and it will provide long-term savings for New Zealanders—they will develop long-term saving habits—and build on our existing efforts to better prepare the country for the challenges of an ageing population. Every financial commentator says it is a good idea.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, they don’t.

Certainly, the vast majority think it is a marvellous idea. There is great commentary on the lack of savings in New Zealand and on how this country is moving ahead now.

I move to education and primary school teachers. Let us look at the number of new primary teachers in schools. We have 455 additional teachers; we are enabling schools to actually put in place 455 additional teachers from next year. That builds on the over 3,000 additional teachers we have already put into the system since 1999. That is over and above those required for roll growth. That has to be good for the kids of New Zealand, because it lowers class ratios, boosts quality, and allows individual attention to be given to our young New Zealanders.

We have made real progress on student interest loans write-off, which was greatly welcomed. We have stopped all future interest charges. That is encouraging people to stay in New Zealand in order to contribute to our economy and society. It gives them more opportunity to get ahead and reduces the burden of their debt.

Last night I was at the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy conference in Waihī. I had representatives of companies telling me that they are getting New Zealanders returning to work in New Zealand for the lifestyle and good income they are getting here, which is a really good situation. This is a real turn-round from where we have been for years and years under a National administration.

Helen Clark has a favourite saying: “It is time we moved on.” That is her favourite saying. When we had “paintergate” it was time to move on. When we had her speeding across the South Canterbury plains, for which her driver and police officers took the rap, it was time to move on. When we had Lianne Dalziel telling one thing to the media and another thing to everyone else it was time to move on. When we had Mr Benson-Pope having very serious problems with his memory it was time to move on.

Effectively, the Prime Minister has told us today that, in relation to Taito Phillip Field and the allegations of very serious corruption, it is time to move on. Well, I have news for her—it is not time to move on. The reason is that she set up the Ingram inquiry with very, very narrow terms of reference. She set up that inquiry so there would be a whitewash. She thought it would be a great way of diverting the public’s attention away from the scandal and to something where the inquiry would take, in her words, 9 days. It took 9 months. The inquiry did not exonerate Mr Field, as the Labour Government has claimed it did. It did nothing of the sort. It left more questions unanswered than answered.

The great villainous act of this situation is that it has besmirched the name of Pacific New Zealanders throughout the country. In my role I come across, and have a lot to do with, Pacific Island New Zealanders. They are heartily embarrassed at the way in which their culture and their name have been besmirched by these allegations of corruption. They do not understand why Helen Clark would have us believe that it does not really matter because that is the way Pacific New Zealanders behave, that is the way they do things in Samoa, and that is the way it happens, so one cannot expect anything else.

Well, we can, and must, expect something else, because the people who suffer from these allegations of corruption, the handing over of cash under the table - type behaviour, are the poorest New Zealanders. In fact, in many cases they are poor New Zealand citizens, and also poor people who are overstayers, who are the most vulnerable people in this country. They suffer because of what has happened—or certainly has been alleged to have happened—in Mr Field’s case.

Helen Clark had the cheek to come here today and effectively say to us that it does not really matter and that it is time to move on. Yesterday Mr Field was toast. Yesterday Mr Field was “outski”. She had someone lined up to take that Mangere seat—that so-called safe Labour seat. She had someone ready to go in there, someone with better church connections, someone who could move in there for Labour. What has changed?

The change is that Pacific people know Helen Clark set up a dud inquiry in the first place. She knew that nothing would ever exonerate Mr Field. She knew there would be questions left unanswered. She wanted to taint him if she could and, at the same time, she did not want to have to deal with a by-election. She got what she wanted. She has destroyed him politically, and she has gone on to destroy Pacific New Zealanders, politically and socially.

All Pacific New Zealanders have now been tarred with the brush of corruption—just as MPs in this House have been tarred by that brush. That is what she has done. Helen Clark has taken the votes of Pacific New Zealanders for years. She has treated Pacific New Zealanders as less than first class. She has said that is all right for them, because it is all they can expect. I am here to tell her that is not what Pacific New Zealanders should expect.

In the Pacific, we as New Zealanders are always going over to Pacific countries, telling them how to get rid of corruption. Well, let us start right here, in this Parliament, where we should be able to be proud of ourselves. We should be able to be proud of the job we do. But has that been good enough for Helen Clark? No.

So what has changed in the last 24 hours? How about a Pacific party. That is what has changed. The thought of that has been too much for Helen Clark. She knows she cannot afford for it to happen.

Community laboratory services have hit the headlines in many areas of New Zealand over the past 12 months. Most recently, two areas have been affected in the Wellington region. Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hutt Valley District Health Board have looked at their contracting processes and have decided they will keep the contract where it is, with the community laboratory service that has provided a very good and reliable service to the people of the Hutt Valley and Wellington regions for the last 70 years. But, as a result, the district health boards jointly have written recently to doctors in the regions, saying that as of 1 November this year patients will have to pay for any laboratory tests ordered by private specialists. This will have the bizarre effect of widening the gap for New Zealanders even further, and building up an even greater barrier than currently exists between the private and public sector in health care, when in fact the Government should be breaking down that barrier and looking for quality services at the best price, in the best time, for patients.

The other area that has recently been affected, and that has been in the news a lot in Auckland, is the Auckland combined district health boards’ decision to take the contract from Diagnostic Medlab, a community laboratory service that has provided community laboratory services to the people of the Auckland region for the past 70 years—and a very good quality service it has been, too—and give it to Labtests Auckland, which currently has no laboratory, no staff, and no equipment. Yet apparently it will be up and running on 1 July 2007, ready to provide what it claims will be an equivalent service to that currently provided to the good people of Auckland. The main reason this has happened is that the district health boards claim there will be a $15 million saving, but there is a bit of misleading information in that figure. The truth of the matter is that there would be a $15 million saving on what is spent this year, but Diagnostic Medlab has contracted to undercut its current budget, so the actual saving to the board by awarding the contract to Labtests Auckland would be a saving of $8 million.

There are several other worrying points with regard to the contract. Many of those who need these services are elderly and do not have the capacity to travel as much as younger members of the population. Collection points will be halved, so in effect that will put extra pressure on general practitioners, who are already burdened, to take blood samples. The Government just this week announced an extra $43 million to help struggling primary health organisations keep their heads above water, but it is happy for even more work to be imposed on those same organisations. That is hardly fair, I would have thought.

The people of Auckland are very worried. They are so worried that 70,000 have signed a petition, saying they do not want the service to change. That is 70,000 signatures. Anybody who has tried to collect signatures for a petition will know exactly how difficult that is. That is 10,000 more signatures than Annette King, the previous Minister of Health, and Helen Clark managed to collect to save PlunketLine when they were in Opposition in 1998. It is interesting how things change. Suddenly, now they are in Government, PlunketLine is no longer needed or relevant. It seems that parents of preschool children should be consulted only when Labour is in Opposition.

The staff of Diagnostic Medlab say they are not going anywhere. Labtests Auckland seems to think it will pick up all the staff, as well as the building. That is not the case; the staff say they will not work for Labtests Auckland. Many of the pathologists say that rather than work for Labtests Auckland, they will leave the country, which would create even more difficulty in relation to the huge current shortage of pathologists in New Zealand.

Medical staff in the Auckland region are also very concerned. I have been contacted personally by many doctors, general practitioners, hospital specialists, and nurses who work in the area. They are very worried. They are the experts in this area, and I would think that the district health boards and the Minister of Health should be very worried that they are voicing their concerns very loudly.

The Minister cannot continue to ignore all of these worries. They are valid. What he needs to take an interest in, too, is the process. Was it fair? There has been a great deal of questioning around the involvement of the chief executive of Labtests Auckland who, I think, although he says he absented himself from discussions, did have a conflict of interest when he was on the Auckland District Health Board and was asked for opinions on where the contract should go and what services should be provided.

It is my pleasure to contribute to the debate this afternoon; I would like to get back to the business of governing and leading this country, and improving the lives of its ordinary citizens, because that is what this Labour-led Government has been doing. Despite whatever kinds of sideshows members opposite wish to entertain, the business of governing, leading, and improving the lot of people in this country is what we on this side of the House are about.

I would like to illustrate that by drawing the House’s attention to a number of announcements that have occurred recently, in the last month or two, that have been of initiatives that are either about to happen or about to give effect to some mechanisms that impact on many ordinary New Zealanders. For example, we have recently announced the Welcome Home Loans scheme. From September it will reach double the proportion of the national housing market accessible to people without a deposit. That decision is part of the Labour-Progressive Government’s broader exploration of new ways to help reverse the decline in homeownership rates—to keep the front door open for first-time buyers.

The Welcome Home Loans scheme underwrites private lenders to give home loans to people on the margins of traditional mortgage criteria. Although it has always been aimed at helping people looking at the lower rungs of the housing market, the scheme’s usefulness has been cramped previously by a 55 percent rise in the lower quartile price of residential properties since it originally came into play. So, in order to combat that, we are increasing the limit for lending with no deposit from $150,000 to $200,000, and we are changing the minimum deposit required for lending over $200,000 from 5 percent of the total loan value to 15 percent of that portion of the loan above the 100 percent lending limit. This means that a household can borrow $200,000 without a deposit, and can borrow up to $280,000 in total under this scheme. That is hugely important to those people who aim to buy their first house, to invest in their future and the future of their family, and to stay committed to New Zealand society and to its development.

On the same theme, I tell members that we are approaching, later today I think, the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill. Making the KiwiSaver scheme even more attractive for workers and employers is the aim of the changes to the KiwiSaver Bill, announced this week. Under the voluntary KiwiSaver scheme, employees contribute 4 percent or 8 percent of their gross salary for long-term savings and, to kick-start returns for savers, the Government is providing a $1,000 contribution and paying some scheme fees. Employers will find the scheme easy to implement, with extra Government support and compliance costs kept to a minimum. The scheme also provides for $5,000 for each KiwiSaver to buy his or her first home. So we see a recurring theme. But, more than that, this KiwiSaver scheme aims to improve the long-term savings habits of New Zealanders, and builds on our efforts to better prepare the country for the challenges of an ageing population.

A couple of other things have been announced recently that are part of the business of Government. They are to do with the business tax review that is currently out in the public domain. It is a discussion document seeking the views of the business community on the rate of company tax and on ways of reducing compliance costs. In tandem with that, we also have the quality regulation review. Again, we are engaging with members of the business community to draw on their expertise and ideas for improving and streamlining the regulatory environment within which their businesses are conducted.

A number of other things have happened recently that go back to the heart of what this Labour-led Government is about. We have increased the minimum wage. We have also improved the rates rebate scheme to take effect from the middle of this year—as of 1 July—and households that are eligible will then be able to receive a $500 rebate.

We have listened to a number of speeches from Labour members today, and I say to them there is no doubt in my mind that Helen Clark and the core of their Government are political activists—and they have been for at least 30 years. They are very experienced political activists. To achieve their single-minded goal of becoming Government members on the Treasury benches, they have achieved new levels of spin, the likes of which this country has never seen before. They have achieved levels of spin never previously obtainable in politics in New Zealand. To use the Prime Minister’s own words, the Wellington beltway, or the beltway, as she described it—that is, the political commentators and suchlike around this country—would describe her as a very strong political manager.

But the question that needs to be asked in this House today is, does that make it right? When members are elected to this place, they are elected not only to lead but also to do what is right. When we look at what has happened in recent events with regard to Taito Phillip Field, we see no way that any fair-minded person could describe what we have seen unfold in this Parliament recently as being right. It is clearly wrong, it is politically bankrupt, and the Prime Minister should take account of what has happened. When Helen Clark was elected as Prime Minister she said she wanted to set new standards. Well, I say to the Prime Minister that she should be careful in what she wishes for, because she has achieved it. She has set a new, all-time low standard with this recent case; it is lower than this Parliament has ever seen in its history. The spin and the media management of this process are nothing short of disgusting.

When we look at the Prime Minister’s track record, we see we have had “paintergate”, we have had “corngate”, we have had “speedgate”, we have had “pledge card - gate”, and we have had “election spending - gate”—the list goes on and on. The Prime Minister needs to come down to the House today and explain to us why not one single member of her caucus who has spoken in this general debate has come to the aid of his or her beleaguered colleague. The reason is obvious: not one of them would be game enough to do so—yet she allows this matter to go on. Well, I can say to this Prime Minister that the beltway, as she describes it, has been overlooked in this regard, and the stench from this issue has reached right out into wider New Zealand. It has reached right over the top of the beltway. People out there are now starting to know what goes on in this Government, and they do not like it. The stench can be smelt from the Opposition side of the House.

I say to Government members that when we line up the list of ex-Ministers—the Ministers who have been dumped for various misdemeanours while in this Government—there is no precedent for it. There has never been such a long list of ex-Ministers under any Government or under any leadership ever before in this country. This latest and last example of Taito Phillip Field is probably the best example I have ever seen, in terms of the way this Government has tried to spin itself out of the situation.

Winston Churchill once said: “You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give.” Well, there is no doubt that this Prime Minister and her Government have single-mindedly dedicated their lives to political activism. There is no question about that. Some could say that is something one can be proud of—but at what cost to New Zealand? What price has New Zealand paid for that single-minded ability of a group of people, who have decided they are above the law and above the boundaries that normal New Zealanders have to live within? People who have been put in place to lead this country have led us into a position where we are now reaching an all-time low standard.

I have to ask again whether that is right. And the answer is, absolutely not. There is not a single member of this Parliament who does not know that, and there is not a single member of this Parliament who would stand up and defend the actions of Taito Phillip Field. The Prime Minister knows that; she knows she is washing her hands of this matter. She knows she is doing the best she can to defend the undefendable and is on the rocks on this issue.

We have two very different pathways forward, one of which is driven by stigmatisation, victimisation, and mistruth, a la the Opposition. Rather than focus on the big issues—where those members cannot match members on this side of the House—and rather than provide a vision and a long-term view that will actually lift and add to the buoyancy of the country, they are going further into the gutter. Not only have we had investigations and followed processes, but those members still continue, aided and abetted by underworked and rather foolish members of the media, to look for an agenda. What a concoction—what a mixture!

But they cannot deter us from the big picture. Number one is that we are addressing those issues and matters that have hobbled us economically. What members of the Opposition do not like about it is that we do have the power and the authority to put our programme into place, because at the end of the day, that is what will count. That is not only the legacy that the next election will be fought on, but also the legacy that, many years out, we will look back to with fantastically fond memories.

Let us just deal firstly with the question of thinking about those who need to be taken care of in retirement. Fortunately for the entirety of the country, later on this afternoon we will go to the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill—I will say more on that very shortly. The Cullen fund, KiwiSaver, and a variety of changes to the tax system bed down a legacy that will outstrip the very venal, short-sighted, and incredibly negative rhetoric we have heard in this House from those diminished members on the Opposition benches.

In addition to that, there is identity. Well, if any New Zealander ever had a doubt as to where National members stand on the question of identity, then Tony Ryall spelt it out today. He is completely uninterested in seeking outcomes that give parity and equity for people such as Māori families in rural New Zealand. Perish the thought that any of them would be so misconceived to ever vote for him! No, there was a small issue that he brought to this House—in fact, he ran the risk of bringing this House into disrepute—and he proved that the day our friends from the Māori Party ever go anywhere near Tony Ryall will be the day that the entirety of the Māori seats are back in our kete for a long, long time. I look forward to that.

Tony Ryall continued what Don Brash sought to do through the entirety of the last election campaign, and he will continue to do so, save for the fact that my whanaunga Tau Henare challenges him. One cannot run the country on the basis of stigmatisation and of constantly marginalising members of the Māori community, as Mr Ryall sought to do today. But Mr Ryall has actually been bettered by Mr Clarkson. Mr Clarkson is somewhat confused as to whether he has a habit, whether a nun wears a habit, or whether a special habitat has been created for him. I have no doubt in my mind, based on what I am hearing as feedback from his colleagues, that they have a very, very peculiar habitat that they hope to consign Mr Clarkson to in the very near future. But, of course, he will not go. He intends to stand again, and he intends to be a loose unit. He believes he has, number one, the wealth to fund his looseness, and, number two, the ideas to distinguish himself amidst the very grey, anonymous collection of figures who surround him. So not only do we have Mr Ryall raising levels of intolerance in the area of the Bay of Plenty, not very far from the township known as Whakatāne, we also have Mr Clarkson from Tauranga.

Let me continue with a host of other fantastic things the Government is doing, which is why we will not be deterred, and why the very venal and thoughtless things that have been said about one of our colleagues will not eclipse the great deeds that characterise this Government. In the area of old people, not only are we thinking ahead in terms of retirement savings, but we have a programme that has been taken up with great gusto up and down the country to help people alleviate the burdens they face in relation to their rates bills. How did those bills arise? They arose through long-term deficits from the other side of the House.

To be given a speaking opportunity in the general debate is something that first-year MPs vie for. But today I speak from a sense of obligation, and I take little pleasure in having to raise unanswered questions that are still in the mind of Parliament and the public mind concerning the Taito Phillip Field affair. The questions need to be answered. We are all tainted in the way this matter has been handled. As practising politicians, we are each obliged to carry a measure of the shame. No matter what the eventual fate of Mr Field is, the cloud of shame will not dissipate until those questions are answered.

The Labour-led Government has put huge effort into answer avoidance. The procedure at question time each day means we can ask questions only to Ministers at present holding the relevant portfolios, not to those members who held portfolios at the time the events occurred. This means that questions are just being addressed, as they call it, but those questions, in fact, need to be answered. The public is concerned because those questions are not being answered. Past Ministers in the immigration and associated portfolios are looking inept at best, corrupt at worst. That is not fair and not something that any of us would wish to have happened to those who are parliamentary colleagues, regardless of where they sit in the House, but it is a consequence emerging from those questions not being answered.

Let us try then, in the general debate, to raise some questions afresh and see whether those concerned will take a call and provide answers to them, or at least be prepared to make a personal explanation. This is not to provide a challenge; it is to provide a chance—an opportunity to do it right and to allow the questions to be answered. The questions I have are to the previous Associate Minister of Immigration, the Hon Damien O’Connor, the member for the West Coast-Tasman electorate in which we both live. People down there are concerned and need to be reassured.

Over recent weeks we have heard questions being addressed to, but not answered by, the present Minister of Immigration, the Hon Mr Cunliffe. The questions have been about the flow of information from the Immigration Service to Mr O’Connor’s office while Mr O’Connor was the Associate Minister of Immigration. They asked whether Mr O’Connor received information concerning Mr Field’s activities that had been sent to him by six different divisions and sections of the Immigration Service. Those questions have not been answered, so they remain—they will not go away. It is uncomfortable having to watch a man shake his head as questions about him are addressed on his behalf, but not answered. The questions need to be answered.

We have heard that people from various levels of the Immigration Service phoned Mr O’Connor’s office to tell him what he needed to know about the applicants involved in the Taito Phillip Field affair. We were told that the department emailed Mr O’Connor with the information he needed to know. The present Minister, Mr Cunliffe, has indicated that the messages may have reached the office or the secretary of Mr O’Connor, but he has not answered beyond that point.

At least five questions need to be answered immediately. Did six divisions of the Department of Labour fail to give Mr O’Connor the basic information it had, or, if it did give him that information, why did he ignore it? What or who convinced Mr O’Connor to reverse his decision of 15 March 2005 declining Mr Field’s submission about Mr Siriwan? Did the Hon Mr Swain or the Hon Mr Goff discuss Mr Field’s submission on behalf of Mr Siriwan with Mr O’Connor after Messrs Swain and Goff visited Mr Field’s house in Samoa? Did Mr Ross Robertson MP—the champion of parliamentary standards—discuss Mr Field’s submission on behalf of Mr Siriwan with Mr O’Connor after Mr Robertson stayed with Mr Field and Mr Siriwan in Mr Field’s house in Samoa? Why, when Mr O’Connor knew in June that the Thais were employed by Mr Field, did he do nothing until the Cabinet meeting of 19 September, when the Prime Minister informed him there was to be an inquiry and after which he put a flag on the case?

Conclusions that can result from the questions not being answered are that Mr O’Connor, unfortunately, will be regarded as inept and lacking in good judgment, yet he has been in Parliament for no little while. Considered inept, yet in a ministerial role? Considered inept after 3 terms? I do not think so. Perhaps he was aware of the problem and chose not to do anything to prevent it, on the basis that it did not look as bad then as it now clearly was. In that case we should be told that that was what had happened.

I guess, without answers to the questions and an explanation from Mr O’Connor, we are all worried that anybody can suggest he was complicit in Mr Field’s scheme. These are not nice choices, and the questions should be answered.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.