General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Members, please keep the noise level down. It is very difficult for members and the Speaker to hear while there are such interjections.

I will take the call, even though the National Party is down to take it. Obviously, it was not organised enough to take the call. We have been watching over the last—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, if that was the case. As I said, it is very difficult to hear when members are guffawing in the House. Do you want the call, Mr Brownlee?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I want to make a point of order, Madam Speaker. We received the new roster and were told that it does not kick in until next week. Until then we are still on the old roster, which means that the Labour Party should start the general debate today. We have obliged by allowing that sort of thing to happen, and if you want to declare that the general debate is now a free-for-all, whereby the first on his or her feet gets to speak, then we are happy to oblige that, as well.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. According to the schedule I have, it is National that has the call. I looked to see who rose for the call, and I responded to that person. I am happy to give the call to National in accordance with what should have happened, but if members do not call—[Interruption] Mr Brownlee, would you please sit down.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Certainly, Madam Speaker, because you asked me—as opposed to your assistants over there.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am really tired of your constant interjections and references to the Chair. I am sorry, Mr Brownlee. I was on my feet. I was attempting to clarify the position for you, and you were constantly interjecting while I was doing so.

Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Today in the general debate the order is that National leads. I apologise that I did not hear the member call, but I did see the Hon Phil Goff rise. That is why I called him. But the member is right; we are on the old agenda until tomorrow.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This now leaves us with something of a dilemma, when one considers the decision you made last week in this Chamber. You pointed out, despite my leader, Winston Peters’, objection, that you had taken a call—that you had awarded a member the call—and that under the Standing Orders you could not change that call. Mr Peters, despite his objections, had to sit down and accept it, disgruntled as he was. Now you have taken a complete reversal.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, I have ruled on that.

Last week politics in this country witnessed one of the most tragic things that I think we could ever witness. We saw a Prime Minister who has for 18 months been prepared to tolerate behaviour from one of her members of Parliament that in my view was disgusting. She is the Prime Minister who would never have tolerated that behaviour from other Ministers in the past. When a Minister was caught drink-driving, she was gone that day. When two Ministers were caught not even knowing at what address their house was, they were both gone—Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs were gone by lunchtime. When Lianne Dalziel was caught lying, she was gone. When Dover Samuels had even an accusation made about him, he was gone. What was the difference? In every one of those cases Helen Clark could afford just to boot them out and show she was in charge, because they were not her majority.

But then along came Taito Phillip Field, and he was this Government’s majority. So what did Helen Clark do? When all of the revelations started emerging about 18 months ago, she said Mr Field had done nothing wrong. Members should listen to this quote from the New Zealand Herald of 14 September 2005, as it is a purler: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.” Yeah, right! None of the things Mr Field had done had accumulated on him; it was just from 18 July, when the Ingram report was released, that things began to change.

Members should remember this quote, because I know they will forget some of this. Here is a heading from the New Zealand Herald dated 22 September: “Field inquiry gets nine days to complete report”. The Prime Minister wanted a real whitewash; she wanted a cracker of a whitewash. Instead of giving Noel Ingram a reasonable period, she gave him 9 days to investigate a very complex matter.

Well, as we all know, Noel Ingram did not take 9 days; he took 9 months to report. But he still had all sorts of limits put on him. He was not given the powers to call witnesses and to interrogate in a proper fashion. He came up with what I think is a partial whitewash. But how did Helen Clark respond to that? Helen Clark stated: “While the report does not find wrongdoing by Mr Field, it does imply errors of judgment.” She said Mr Field had some matters to work through with the Labour leadership and the Labour whips, and Michael Cullen stated: “But he works incredibly hard on behalf of his constituents. He has people coming to him from all over Auckland for assistance,”—I bet he did! I bet he had people coming from all over Auckland for the sort of assistance he was offering—“not just in immigration cases but in many other cases.” I think we should start to inquire into some of those “other cases”, as well. Dr Cullen stated: “He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party …”. I have to say that if it comes to using constituents to tile one’s house for almost subsistence level pay—if not for no pay at all—I agree that he does more of that than does the entire National Party. There is no doubt about it. Michael Cullen said in the urgent debate that he suspected that Mr Field was guilty only of working hard for his constituents.

But then things started to change. It was not that Taito Phillip Field had done anything more or less, or anything bad; we are still working with stuff he had done. But last Tuesday, when Helen Clark gave her major speech to the House, Taito Phillip Field somehow cut across it, and somehow rained on her parade. It was not a problem that he had been corrupt, had been doing things with constituents that were just unconscionable, had not been paying minimum wages, or had been doing all of the other things that Labour goes on and on about. All of that was all right. Helen Clark had excused all of that over and over again for 18 months. But then he did the unconscionable thing. He cut across her parade last Tuesday—and he was gone by lunchtime. “I am not having that,” she said. In fact, she actually stated: “You cannot have a situation where someone appears in the media cutting across my statement to Parliament as Prime Minister, …”. There we go—it does not matter whether one is a crook, one is corrupt or one is whatever else one is, but one does not cut across her statement as Prime Minister.

It gets better. On 13 February, after all that had happened, she stated: “I’ve made it clear for quite a long time that the behaviour was unacceptable”—

There goes an absolute lesson in double standards. Is this really Maurice Williamson, a Minister in the previous National Government that was kept alive by the vote of Alamein Kopu, who was elected as an Alliance member of Parliament? She voted for National to keep it in power—National, desperate to hold on in the dying days of that administration, and now—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She didn’t break the law.

She did not break the law, but what about the situation in the previous term of this Labour-led Government? There was the National Party being supported consistently by Donna Awatere-Huata. When did the National Party step aside and say that it did not want Donna Awatere-Huata’s vote? Of course, it never did. Double standards and hypocrisy—that is what we have been hearing.

More than that, we saw at the start of this debate the absolute disarray and confusion in the National Party, whose members did not even understand they were to lead the debate—but then we saw something even more interesting. The man who stormed out of this Chamber, abusing the Speaker, was the demoted leader aspirant, Gerry Brownlee, bitter and frustrated about his leadership loss.

I have been watching the body language along the front row of the Opposition benches, and I have been watching Bill English—the loyal deputy. Bill English is the man John Key went to see that evening in 2003. John Key went to Bill English’s home, sat in Bill’s lounge with Bill and his wife, and said that he was for Bill and would vote for him in the leadership caucus the next day. Then, at their next meeting, John Key went back on his word and voted against Bill English. He double-crossed and betrayed him, and there on Bill English’s face we can see the desire for revenge. That man, the deputy leader, is waiting for the first chance he can get for John Key to slip—and the hand will not be a hand to help John Key up; it will be a hand to give him the finishing coup de grãce. That is what we will see in the National Party. And then there is Nick Smith. He was the deputy leader of the National Party—for 2 weeks.

But I want to raise some other questions of credibility about the National Party. I recommend that National members who have not read The Hollow Men should read it carefully, because I want to talk about lack of credibility in leadership. I see in the appendix of this book an email to Mr John Key from the leader of the Exclusive Brethren, telling John Key that he would spend a million dollars to support the National Party through the party vote. Was that the same John Key who 2 months later stated that he knew nothing about the Exclusive Brethren, after meeting them? Every National MP—Maurice Williamson was one—said they did not know what the Exclusive Brethren were about to do, but this book shows quite conclusively that National caucus MPs were shown the pamphlets attacking the Greens. Lies were said in that election campaign, I say to Mr Williamson, and denials were made that were untrue. That National Party has no credibility.

But here is another great quote from this book—let me read it directly from the book. The National Party was doing very badly, so it employed a guy called Peter Keenan. Peter Keenan said that National members had to improve—that everybody had to go to “presentation skills courses” so they could pull off “sincerity”. He said: “The secret of success is sincerity and conviction.”, and “Once you can fake that, you have got it made.” Is that what John Key’s taking little Aroha Ireland up to Waitangi was about? Is that what the concern about the disadvantaged in my electorate was about? It was about faking sincerity.

I say to National members that if they are really sincere about low-income folk in this country, how about they support a regular increase in the minimum wage—which this Government has given and which the previous National Government never did. How about them backing off from what Bill English said about decile 1 schools being overfunded and awash with cash? John Key turned up to a decile 1 school in my electorate, feigning concern, feigning support, when his deputy leader was saying that those low-income schools were getting too much cash.

When will National members come clean on what they intend to do about Housing New Zealand Corporation rents? If they are worried about low-income people, are they going back to the policy they promoted in office and in Opposition about market rents for low-income folk? That is how people are pushed into poverty—by taking low-income people and putting up their rents to the point they cannot bear the rents, and then by selling the houses on the basis that they are not needed.

What we have seen in this House in the last few days has been an utter disgrace. We have seen this Labour Government relying on the vote of a man whom the Prime Minister has described as unethical, yet yesterday we saw this Government continuing to rely on that vote—in fact, happy to use his proxy vote. We also saw that investigations and interviews by the police of members of Parliament are now, apparently, parliamentary business.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Well, they are in the Labour Party.

They are in the Labour Government, as my colleague Mr Williamson has said, and the reason they are is that there is a huge list of people who have consistently come into the sight of the police.

I am one of the members who has been absolutely sickened and saddened by the fiasco of Taito Phillip Field’s case, and one reason I am is that every Pacific Island New Zealander was thrilled when Taito Phillip Field was made a member of Parliament. However, I have just read David Lange’s autobiography over the holidays, and I have read of how he was concerned about Taito Phillip Field. David Lange raised those concerns, yet the Labour Party continued along its path—under Helen Clark—to put Taito Phillip Field into Mangere. The Labour Party, under Helen Clark, knew what was going on. Labour knew it; it has been going on for 12 years. Labour knew what was happening, yet with this Government and with this Prime Minister, we have a whitewashed inquiry—the Ingram inquiry—which was put into place only once we had brought this issue to public attention. Only when the public said that they would not accept it did the inquiry occur, even though the public might have accepted “paintergate”, “corngate”, and Helen Clark saying that she could not tell whether the car was speeding at 140 kilometres per hour across the South Canterbury plains, as she, with Jim Sutton, was too busy reading papers in the back seat. She was too busy reading, and she let that driver take the fall. She let those men take the fall for her, because she did not have the spine to deal with it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member now is implying a lack of courage. That is a personal reflection and outside the rules governing the House. I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

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

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past people have always been required to apologise for implying a lack of courage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. That, in fact, is the case. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

We have a Prime Minister who is happy to take the perks of office, and to strut the world stage in Norway at the ski fields, but she was not happy to stand in the dock when she should have been the one there—she should have been the one on trial. Instead, with Taito Phillip Field, we now have a situation where that man has been treated differently by the Prime Minister, and he has been treated differently from all those other Labour Cabinet Ministers.

And why has that been so? It is because the one thing he did was to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. He stole the camera shots and gave an interview. She has had to stay quiet for the last year; she has told him to shut up, to not give interviews, and simply to take every sling and arrow that has been thrown. He has, in fact, become the pincushion.

💬 Hon Annette King: Who is throwing them?

I tell Mrs King that there has to be some mud to throw in the first place. Mrs King knows full well that that Ingram inquiry, unfortunately, was set up by Helen Clark to fail. Nine days is what she gave Dr Ingram. Dr Ingram’s name has now become mud in this House and that is really quite unfair, because he should have been asked to look at Mr Field’s conflict of interest as an MP, not just as a Minister. It was never going to be about Mr Field as a Minister; it was always about his behaviour as an MP, the relationship he had with Mr Damien O’Connor, and the little deals that were going on. The fact that Mr Field put up about 200 applications in 1 year for different criteria for immigrants should have sent the alarm bells ringing. Yet when we look at the situation, we see that it has been going on year after year. Why is it that Thai tilers from the North Shore came to Mr Field? Why is it that people from all over Auckland—as the Prime Minister knew, and as she stated—came to Mr Field? Because they knew they could be in!

It is really hard to tell where to start on this particular speech. I think the first thing is that we have established today that the speaker who preceded me did not get any of Mr Keenan’s lessons on how to fake sincerity.

💬 Judith Collins: I don’t need them.

She says she does not need Mr Keenan’s lessons on how to fake sincerity. Well, I tell her that she gives no indication of sincerity at all in this debate. Point No. 2: that was a member who was part of the parliamentary caucus who cast the vote of Donna Awatere Huata. She cast the vote as part of that caucus when ACT would not, on a principled basis, cast a vote. Right through the trial she did that. She was part of that. Let us just have a little bit of consistency.

💬 Darren Hughes: And when Nick was in court.

When Dr Nick Smith was in court and when Gerry Brownlee was in court their votes were cast by the National—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That was a civil suit—don’t you know the difference?

Oh no, it was a civil suit! He was still found guilty of assaulting a pensioner by throwing the pensioner down the stairs. But Nick Smith thinks that is all right; well, I do not. But the point is that his vote was cast.

But I want to get to another point, because it is something that is not really widely known by the public and it should be drawn to their attention. I want to refer to chez Key. I am not referring to the mansion—the $8 million to $20 million mansion with three sections, tennis court, and things like that. I am not referring to that. I am referring to the inability of the new Leader of the Opposition to stand in this House, hold a piece of paper, and not have it shake. I am referring to the inability of the National Party leader to stand in this House and hold a piece of paper in his hand to ask a question without it shaking so much that he cannot ask it.

He has got to the point, within days of the House starting, of having to grip the bench with two hands in order to avoid the public, through the television, seeing his hands shaking. Is this the confident person who has had the Peter Keenan lessons? Is this the confident person whom Peter Keenan has been training to fake sincerity? Or is this just the fact that when one is being run as a puppet by a puppeteer it is very hard to do it in the House without a little bit of wobbling going on? The point I want to emphasise is that the co-leadership is not going very well.

💬 Hon Member: That’s not what Bill says.

Oh, it is not what Mr English says. Mr English says that it is going quite well for now, but at some stage I am sure he will say: “You live by the sword, John, and you die by the sword. You had my vote, Mr Key, for a while, but you haven’t got it any more.” Of course, he did not have his vote because there was not one, and that was something that was pretty obvious. But I still have not heard Bill English deny the fact that he has told people that he wrote the Burnside speech. The fact is that he said he wrote it because John Key knows very little about social policy.

John Key tells the country he spent much of the summer writing it, and Bill English says John Key knew so little about social policy that Bill English had to do the speech for him. Now, one of them is telling the truth. I am not allowed to say that one of them is a liar, and I will not, but one of them is telling the truth, and only one of them can possibly be telling the truth. I believe Bill English. I do believe Bill English in this case, because I think he is the puppeteer rather than John Key knowing what he is doing.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This Government, through its now land-grabbing agency the Office of Treaty Settlements, is embarking on a further theft of land from traditional Māori owners. I hope that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister Burton, is listening to this, because this is a serious issue for both the claimants and the integrity of the Treaty settlement process, which is designed to provide justice and redress to those Māori iwi and hapū who are wrongfully bereft of lands that were taken from them. Ngāti Kahu are now fighting to stop the sale of Rangiputa Station, which is owned by Landcorp, but which had a section 27B memorial placed on it in the late 1980s. Those memorials are placed on land owned by State-owned enterprises in order to identify them for return to Māori owners in Treaty settlements. It is the only system available for the protection of those very significant, and often very valuable, properties currently owned by State-owned enterprises. But the memorial process is failing to properly protect those lands because the Office of Treaty Settlements is giving Landcorp permission to sell them off, and that includes Rangiputa Station.

It is 20 years since the memorial was placed on the title to that station, and Ngāti Kahu are finally very close to finishing their Treaty settlement negotiations and getting that station back. But the Office of Treaty Settlements, in its utter failure to protect or advocate for the interests of the claimants, has allowed Landcorp to sell off a property that was, and remains, the major purpose for the settlement claim in the first place. The Office of Treaty Settlements has even failed to help Ngāti Kahu when they looked for financial support from joint-venture partners in order to try to secure this land.

Paul James, the director of the Office of Treaty Settlements is reported as saying that he approved the sell-off because although those memorials are designed to protect Māori lands, State-owned enterprises should still be allowed to trade in those assets.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: But there is still a memorial on it!

He has basically refused to protect those assets for Ngāti Kahu, in favour of the Government making a huge profit from the private sale of valuable Māori land. The Minister keeps saying a memorial is still retained on that land, but the land is being sold. Currently a large part of the land is being sold for $4 million. That sale is going ahead and the Office of Treaty Settlements is doing nothing to protect that land from sale so that it can be returned to Ngāti Kahu, which is what they have wanted for many, many years now. Some commentators have called the process by which those lands are sold off an “exit profit” derived by the Government as part of its settlement process.

Part of the reason for the failure to protect this property and make sure it does go back to Ngāti Kahu is that the Office of Treaty Settlements has severely restricted the value of the settlement to them to only $8 million. Therefore Ngāti Kahu cannot afford to buy the station from Landcorp and still retain any hope of providing financial security for their people into the future. The Office of Treaty Settlements often argues that those amounts are negotiated between it and claimants, but that is, frankly, not true. I have seen a large number of settlements where the Office of Treaty Settlements turned up to the table with a figure, and that figure was not resiled from during the whole process of the negotiations, which can take many, many years.

This case highlights also the absurdity of relying on the Office of Treaty Settlements to deal fairly and in good faith with claimants, because the benchmarking policy does not recognise the cultural value of land nor the changes in the economic value of land over time. The fact is that Rangiputa Station is very valuable, and is increasing in value. But claimants’ settlements are benchmarked against settlements that were made 10 years, or more, ago. That means there is no means by which the benchmarking process recognises the changing value of land, nor does it reflect the current economic conditions. The benchmarking policy is a process that rips off the later—and often the smaller—claimants, who have come 10 or 15 years after the early claimants, at the end of a settlement process. For those claimants, the settlements are the only means for them to gain financial security and to have their traditional lands returned to them.

The settlement process is supposed to be a fair and just process; it is, more clearly, simply about the Government getting away with as cheap and easy an offer as possible. It certainly is not the claimants’ fault that their settlements take so long and, therefore, the value of land increases so significantly. That fault can be laid squarely at the feet of the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements, because they use the delaying tactic to bully the claimants.

Today we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a Government in meltdown. In my 17 years as a member of Parliament, I have never ever seen the spectacle of a Prime Minister and a former Labour colleague in open warfare. We had the Prime Minister threatening Phillip Field as to what he could or could not do with his vote. That is a sign of a Government on the way out. The saga highlights just how—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings—it goes back to Erskine May—that no person can threaten a member around the use of his or her vote. A member making that allegation is, in fact, alleging a contempt, and there is a proper way of bringing that up. Therefore, that is something that can be raised only one way—that is, by way of a letter to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, not through this sort of vacuous assault.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I say that it is important to recall the exact interchange that occurred between the Prime Minister and Taito Phillip Field. The Prime Minister told Mr Field that he needed to reflect on the fact that his voters in Mangere had voted for Labour and the Labour programme.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In fact, the Prime Minister was addressing the House—and members of the Opposition, in particular—at the time. They should reflect on the fact that Taito Phillip Field had been elected on that basis.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a very valid point, and there are actual ways to deal with the issue that the member raised. I ask the member to be very careful in how he addresses the House on that issue.

This whole saga just highlights how unethical and immoral our Prime Minister has become. The Prime Minister will do anything, say anything—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have been distracted because it happened in the first sentence following the previous point of order, but the member has now reflected on the Prime Minister in an unparliamentary way. I ask that those comments be withdrawn and apologised for.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that it is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister referred to Phillip Field as both unethical and immoral—she said those very words in this House. We cannot possibly have the situation that Mr Mallard would have us have: that it is OK for the Prime Minister to refer to another member, Mr Field, as unethical and immoral, but not proper for others to use those exact two words of the Prime Minister. I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that twice, now, during my speech—and also during my colleague Judith Collins’ speech—a very defensive Mr Mallard has been deliberately breaking up the 5-minute speeches. There is a longstanding principle that during a 5-minute general debate speech there should not be continuous points of order that break up members’ speeches.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: When you are ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, you should consider the facts. The Prime Minister did not make those comments about Taito Phillip Field in the House. She was asked about those comments, and said she had not resiled from them. There is a big difference between a member repeating comments and that member indicating that he or she has not resiled from comments made earlier.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): First of all, a personal reflection was made. Members must always be careful, under Standing Order 116, in making reflections on other members. I read to the House Speaker’s ruling 38/2: “Reference to the private affairs of members or personal reflections would have to be of a strongly undesirable, insulting or offensive nature to come within the meaning of the terms used [in Standing Order 116].” That is the first point. The second point, which Dr Nick Smith raised, is the issue of the constant raising of interjections during a 5-minute speech. That, in itself, is out of order. Such tactics can lead to disorder in the House, so I would ask members to please be careful about what they do—recognising, of course, that where there are valid points of order, then that is an issue that can be raised with the Speaker.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point now so that I will not be accused of interrupting again. I want to get this point very clear. Are you now stating, and ruling in this House, that the word “unethical” can be applied to a member in this House without it being an unbecoming reflection? Unless you make the member withdraw and apologise for making that comment, that is the effect of your ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am saying to members that under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, imputations of improper motives, offensive references to members’ private affairs, and personal reflections are out of order. Members need to be very careful in how they address those issues.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know there is a list of prescribed words, and I think all of us know of that list. Every time in the past, when I have been in this House, when the word “unethical” has been used of a member and objection has been taken to it, Speakers have consistently ruled that such a term is a personal reflection. It is a reflection on a member, and every Speaker in the past has required it to be withdrawn and apologised for. In differentiating—if you do differentiate—in this case, I think you are lowering the standards of this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his considered viewpoints on the issues. It all depends on the circumstances that prevail in the House at the present time, or during the course of the speech to the House. I did not take anything untoward from what was being said, but had the issue been much stronger, then the member would have actually had a valid point of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking you now to continue to reflect on this ruling, because it is a very, very important one. I cannot think of any circumstance where one can refer to a member of this House as being unethical and it not be a reflection on the member. If I called you unethical, Mr Assistant Speaker, it would automatically be a reflection. It would be a deliberate reflection on you. If I called John Hayes over there unethical that would be a reflection on him. If I called Dr Nick Smith unethical it would absolutely be a reflection. There is no other way of interpreting that comment. There is no circumstance in this House where a member can be described as unethical and it not be a personal reflection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is actually a matter for members themselves who are indicated as being in that position to raise that issue, not someone else on their behalf.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know that that rule cannot work for members who are currently engaged in other activities and Government business outside of this Chamber. That ruling applies when people are in the House and they choose not to take it up. It is the choice of a member who is here to not object. It is just vacuous to suggest that members who are not present are required to come down to the House to raise an objection, especially when an unprecedented ruling like this is being made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you again, Mr Mallard, for your consideration. I have been in this House for some considerable time, and accusations have been levelled against a number of members who have not been in the House. Those members are often called by the party whips to come down. I am prepared to seek some guidance on this issue, and I will rule accordingly. In the meantime, I am going to call Dr Nick Smith, and he will start his speech again.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

💬 Ron Mark: I am well aware that you have just made a ruling. I am asking for a point of order.

He’s touchy today.

💬 Ron Mark: Is it normal for a member to interject—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. I just say to members that points of order on the floor are to be terse and to the point. There needs to be no interjections whatsoever, because if there are interjections and the person takes longer to make the point of order, then it leads to disorder. This place needs to just calm down for a little while.

I apologise, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I already have a point of order on the floor, Dr Smith.

This is taking up members’ time on members’ day. We have now had 11—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I already have a point of order on the floor, Dr Smith. The member’s speech time is not affected.

💬 Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will be quick and to the point. I now have two points of order, which I will deal with quickly. Firstly, other members have been thrown out of the House for interjecting on a point of order. Another member was thrown out of the House just a few moments ago for challenging the Speaker, speaking over the Speaker, and refusing to sit down. I want to know why Dr Smith is being treated differently from Mr Brownlee. That is the first point, and I would love to hear the explanation on that.

The second point is that you have just issued to all the members of the House—not just Dr Smith and not Mr Mallard—a warning about making spurious points of order that are designed to break up members’ speeches. As a result of that warning to all members of the House, you have also given Dr Smith an opportunity to restart his speech, which will effectively give him an 8-minute speech out of what was a 5-minute speech. It sounds to some people at this end of the House as though Dr Smith is being given some sort of leniency, for a reason that is based around your decision that all the points of order you have heard thus far have been spurious. I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that the first point of order was raised because Judith Collins called someone spineless. You accepted the point of order as being valid and you required that she withdraw. The second point of order was raised because she did not apologise. You accepted that point of order—therefore, it was not spurious—and you required her to apologise. Then there were other points of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would you get to the point of order, Mr Mark.

💬 Ron Mark: The point of order is that none of those points of order that you accepted and ruled on were spurious. They were obviously not so, because you ruled on them. To give this member an extended period of speaking time when no spurious points of order were raised is wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I say to members that this is a House of robust debate, and one expects that. It is up to the Speaker’s judgment call at the time as to the atmosphere and what is happening in the House. What I want in this House is what everyone wants, and that is order. It is my duty to keep debate within the Standing Orders. After all, these are the rules that have been crafted for well over a century of parliamentary practice in New Zealand, and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. I understand where Mr Mark is coming from, but I tell him that Dr Smith had been speaking for only a matter of 15 to 20 seconds. Having said that, I point out that one must recognise that when there are constant interjections that are designed to interrupt a member’s speech, then it is up to the Speaker whether he or she will recognise that—in this case, I do.

I can understand why the Government is so super-sensitive.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise point of order, Mr Speaker.

Get a life!

💬 Ron Mark: I point out to the member that I do have a life, unlike some people with convictions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I have explained to the member that when a point of order is made, it is to be terse and to the point. Members should not get into interjections with other members, because that in itself leads to disorder. That is not what I require in this House.

💬 Ron Mark: I thank you for that, Mr Assistant Speaker, but your job is to protect all members of this House and to treat all members of this House as equals. Your job is not to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is what I am doing. If the member has a valid point of order he will make it, please. Otherwise, I am going to call Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. I already have a point of order on the floor.

💬 Ron Mark: My point of order is that I raised two issues. You have not addressed the first of those issues, which is why, given that Mr Brownlee was thrown out of this House for challenging the Speaker and refusing to sit down and be quiet, you have not thrown out Dr Smith for doing precisely the same thing to you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not notice Dr Smith doing that, but if he did then I will be taking note in future and we will do it on that basis.

💬 Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention that those of us on this side of the House believe that Mr Mark is challenging the Speaker. He should be asked to leave the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a judgment for the Speaker to make. I have considered the matter, but I am going to call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

I can understand why the Government is so sensitive. Let me set out very clearly why the conduct of this Government is unethical and immoral. You see, we had the Prime Minister in the newspaper—the New Zealand Herald—and on One News saying quite clearly that Mr Field’s behaviour was unacceptable, unethical, and immoral. They are the words of the Prime Minister. Yet she is prepared to have her Government propped up with a one-seat majority by a man whom she says is immoral and unethical. We say that is not good enough.

What is even worse is that we have a set of rules in this Parliament about when votes can be cast. Standing Order 156(4)(d) states that a vote can be cast on behalf of an Independent member only when he or she is ill or when there is a good family reason, which is fair enough, or when he or she is on public business. This Government is now saying that being interviewed by the police for corruption is the public business of members of Parliament. If I were a member of a Government that was hanging on by that thread I would say its time was up and it was time to move on.

Let us look at the contortions of the Prime Minister’s statements. Let me read this quote to members. She said quite clearly: “I think the only thing Mr Field is guilty of is trying to be helpful to constituents.” Was that just the first newspaper report? Was that statement made way back in 2005? No, it was made in September 2006, which was after the Ingram inquiry, and after it was a matter of public record that Phillip Field had been using Thai tilers to do slave labour work while he jacked them up with visitor and immigration status in New Zealand. What sort of Prime Minister and Government do we have that can say: “That’s just helping constituents.”? What sort of moral vacuum is there amongst Labour members opposite when they think that is just the normal work of helping constituents? I wonder what Michael Joseph Savage—a fighter for the rights of the unprivileged and the workers—would think of a Labour Party today that thinks it is OK for a member on a ministerial salary to use the slave labour of desperate Thai migrants.

But the saga gets worse! Let us look at what has happened this week. On Monday the unethical, immoral Government says it is going to have a proxy for Phillip Field. On Tuesday the Labour whip casts the vote to prop up this tired, decrepit Government with that vote of Mr Phillip Field. And today the position has changed again, and Mr Phillip Field says he has withdrawn that proxy. Is that the basis on which the Government of New Zealand operates? Is that what it has deteriorated to? Is the state of affairs we now have in New Zealand that a Government is propped up, on the single-seat majority of someone whom the Prime Minister herself says is unethical and immoral?

Let us look at some of the other things that the Prime Minister has said. Last week she said: “I have made it clear, for a long time, that his conduct was unethical and immoral.”

💬 Judith Collins: How long ago?

That statement was made on 13 February 2006.

💬 Judith Collins: How long had she thought that?

Well, in September she said: “I think Mr Field is guilty of trying too hard to help constituents.”

💬 Judith Collins: That doesn’t sound like her.

Well, what is this business that she has been saying for a long time? Can we believe anything the Prime Minister now says? The answer is we cannot. This Prime Minister will hang on to power by the barest of threads and by the ends of her fingernails. The further disgrace is that we have heard all those Labour members give speeches in this Parliament about ethical conduct, about standing up for the rights of workers, about minimum wages, etc., but how many of them have we heard talking about the Thai migrants who were abused by Mr Field? Not one. That is disgraceful.

There are many things one could say about Dr Nick Smith, the member who has just resumed his seat, but most of them are, unfortunately, outside the rules of this Parliament. It is a shame that that member does not comply with them a little more often. But I will say that he has very mixed morals, because for that member to come into this House and call this side—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to do it for one of my own colleagues, but it is my view that the description that the Minister has just applied to Dr Nick Smith is outside Standing Orders 115 and 116. Clearly, he does not have to take objection to it but I do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that the House has been tested. The member has taken no objection.

I withdraw and apologise, because the member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 115 it is not necessarily the member to whom the member has referred, so on that basis I will withdraw and apologise. It is hypocritical for any member of this House to come in here and attack another member, but it is more so when that member himself has been held to be in contempt of court in this country. That member, Dr Nick Smith, should not lecture anyone in this House on ethics and morals, when he has been held to be in contempt of court. Not only that, when he returned to this House, having been held to be in contempt of court, he received a standing ovation from his so-called moral and ethical colleagues. I am just pleased that I am on this side of the House and that member, with those so-called morals and so-called ethics, is on that side of the House.

In fact, I feel very, very good to be part of a team that is very ably and competently led by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. They are a very experienced and very competent leadership team that not only delivers visionary and competent plans of action to take New Zealand forward but are a leadership team that delivers those plans. Furthermore, they are a leadership team that actually likes each other, that works well together, that gets on with each other, and that sits next to each other as if they are on a shared bench, not as if they are not even on a shared planet. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are a leadership team. It is envied by many, including, I know, many in the National Party, and they are an absolute pleasure to work with.

That has to be in very stark contrast with the co-leadership of Bill English and John Key—the nightmare team currently leading the National Opposition. The co-leadership, as Bill English describes it, is the “face of John Key and the mind of Bill English”. But that is not the only contrast in the National Party. What about the contrast between Bill English and Judith Collins? Bill English described Judith Collins as being “pushed beyond her capacity … with an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence”. They must be just as close as anything! He said that she had spent too much time cultivating the media herself, “and believing the resultant publicity”. The atmosphere in the caucus must be so cosy!

She then said she would find it very hard to recover her credibility in caucus, where she had been a tough critic of her colleagues, behind the scene, but now they know it. That leads to very close friendships, I am sure! What are Judith Collins’ colleagues saying about her, now that they have found out what she said about them? In fact, it seems the only person who is now prepared to back Judith Collins publicly is John Key, who says she is terrific. He is the only one on record who has been able to say that, so far.

What about Murray McCully and Bill English? Bill English said: “You need to know now that the experienced people in National will not work in a Government run by McCully. I and others will not tolerate him exercising the same influence he does now.” That was said when Don Brash was leader; it was before the leadership change. John Key made quite a strong play about moving Murray McCully aside, except when it came to writing John Key’s first speech, except when it came to organising his first visit—right up to today, literally, because Murray McCully is with John Key in Gisborne today. Murray McCully organised the visit, and I am sure that Bill English is really happy about that! It is just like Maurice Williamson on Bill English. He said that Bill English does not have “anywhere near the excitement, the charisma, the humour, the personality, or the talent to be the leader.”

It is getting to be such a warm, friendly family! Maybe those National members think all that is needed is to do a flip-flop on the comments made about their close colleagues, and hope no one remembers. Does anyone think that Bill English can flip-flop like he does on policy on his view of Judith Collins?

What a fine example we have seen of two Ministers of the Crown performing for the gallery and the radio because they know there may be a few extra listeners, given we are about to debate an amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act. It is a disgrace to our profession that they stood up and made personal attacks on people. It is a disgrace that the only thing they can do is stand up and make those sorts of comments. They are tetchy, and it is understandable. The defensiveness that is coming out is understandable; so is the behaviour they are currently displaying. I suppose if we learn nothing else, we know that they show a lack of taking responsibility and lack of acknowledging exactly what is going on.

The Labour backbenchers must all be nervous at the moment, and the Ministers as well, because when their leader says one thing, that may not be the same thing she means the following week. We have a Prime Minister who chooses her quotes and chooses her day to actually get up and make them. So let us understand that on 14 September 2005 this Prime Minister said: “I think the only thing that he”—Taito Phillip Field—“is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.” Let us leap to 13 February 2007, when the Prime Minister said: “I have made it clear for quite a long time that the behaviour was unacceptable. It was unethical and immoral.”

I ask what will happen to Steve Maharey when his promise of 20 free hours of childcare does not get fulfilled, when thousands of children miss out on the very promise that this Government has given, and when centres are openly not taking up the offer. What will happen to Steve Maharey and his job? I notice that Phil Goff has been a little bit upset in the last couple of days.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Agitated.

“Agitated” is a word I would use—a bit nervy. He is making a few mistakes with personal statements and things. I am a little bit concerned about him. He has put out a press release to say he will go parachuting this Friday. I felt that maybe he should check his backpack a few times, because this Prime Minister has a way of cutting people off when she does not agree with what is going on. So let us remember not to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. We can have people like Ruth Dyson and Lianne Dalziel, who have all felt the effects of this Prime Minister, and we can have people like John Tamihere and Dover Samuels, but when it really comes down to it, it is the Prime Minister’s call. She believes that unethical and immoral behaviour is OK, but do not rain on her parade! When her day has come and she is making her statement, goodness help people who rain on her parade.

Let us talk about what will happen with the policy of 20 free hours of childcare. Let us talk about some of the facts and some of the policies. Just today the Ministry of Education said it had no idea how many childcare centres would accept the 20 free hours. The ministry will have no idea until May, and parents are expecting it on 1 June. This Government campaigned on a promise to parents that come 1 July 2007 those children—all 3 and 4-year-olds—will get 20 free hours. Now the facts are coming clear, and it will not be available for those parents and their children. It is as simple as that.

This Minister needs to stand up and be honest with parents who are relying on those 20 free hours. He made a promise, he cannot deliver on it, and it is time that the Minister came clean on it. What will happen to his job, though? Does the fact that he is not fulfilling a promise make him unethical? I pose the question: is it unethical if someone cannot fulfil a promise that he or she has given to the New Zealand public? As such, what will the Prime Minister do to cover it? Mind you, she probably needs his vote, and it is a different story when a leader has only a one-vote majority. All of a sudden all the rules change, because it is not based on facts, it is not based on ethics, and it is not based on principle; it is based on how to keep that woman in power. That is the only thing that is considered by that Government.

We have the interesting situation at the moment of having a member who is in the House but usually not in the House, whose vote goes to the Government to use but only when it suits him. The Government is not sure when it can use his vote, and it certainly does not know what he is doing when he is not in the House and it wants to use his proxy.

And—scene! What a fine theatrical performance from Paula Bennett—another one. I ask Paula Bennett whether National will abolish the 20 free hours policy.

💬 Paula Bennett: It’s not our policy.

No, I ask Paula Bennett to answer the question. Will National abolish the 20 free hours policy, which will be in place at the time of the next election? Oh, we hear nothing. What a big surprise! The National Party finds it very easy to point out the problems, but I have listened to a week’s worth of responses to the Prime Minister’s statement and I have listened to the general debate, and I have not heard a single alternative policy from National members—not one. I ask National members to please give us one policy that will make a difference for this country. We had the food in schools policy, which has now been dropped because the schools do not want it.

I heard today that apparently John Key has confirmed that National’s policy on State house rentals is market rents. That is the one policy we have from this National Opposition. Today John Key is in Gisborne. I hope he will be honest with the people of Gisborne—but I doubt it—and tell them, while he is going around cuddling all the poor, disadvantaged kids and giving them a ride in his limousine, that their families will face a rent increase of possibly 140 percent, like they did last time National was in Government when it introduced market rentals. National members have gone quiet now. As we know, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that the impact on Housing New Zealand tenants of market rentals was the single biggest thing that contributed to poverty when National was last in Government. The council’s report on market rents stated: “The move to market rents has had a serious impact on HNZ tenants as they had to pay significantly more for their accommodation than under income-related rents. According to the latest census, median weekly rentals increased by 135 percent…”, for the poorest families in this country whom Mr Key is now trying to cuddle up to. It will take far more than a politically correct T-shirt, some nice slogans, and saying things nicely to explain to those families that they will not be able to afford to put food on the table or, indeed, a roof over their heads when National gets back into Government. It was very interesting.

John Key got on the plane to Gisborne today, saw a young Māori guy, bowled over to him, and started talking to him, saying: “Hey, I’m John Key. I’m your man. I’m the iPod generation. Look at me. I’m cool. Do you like my tiki T-shirt?”. Then John Key started talking to him about what he could do to help him, without realising that it was Parekura Horomia’s son. His son got some information out of Mr Key, and found it all very amusing.

I get sick of National members coming into Gisborne and telling us how bad we have it—I am sure Dr Smith knows. National members came in the middle of the tourist season, which has seen Gisborne rebound, and, on TV, basically told people not to go to Gisborne because there were gangs, drugs, and violence there. Well, I say thank you very much to the National Party, because one of the single biggest things that held Gisborne back when National was in Government was the reputation Gisborne had around the country of being the economic and social yoke around the country’s neck. We have fought hard to get rid of that reputation. I will read a passage from a letter that our mayor, Meng Foon, sent to the Prime Minister: “I write to convey my appreciation of all your Government’s policies and funding support you have given our region over the past few years. Your Government’s support has certainly given us economic transformation.” That was from the Mayor of Gisborne, and I could not put it any better myself. That letter was from just last month—January. We know we still have problems in Gisborne, but I say to Dr Smith that we do not need outsiders coming in, telling us how bad we have it, then swanning off back to Parnell when they have not made any effort to actually talk to people on the ground in Gisborne.

Let us be clear as to why John Key is back in Gisborne today. He decided to announce the fact that he was going to abolish the Māori seats and the seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. That did not go down well, so he is now on a “Māori fact-finding mission”, which means: “Please tell me any facts about Māori, because I do not know anything.” He is there trying to suck up and saying: “Let me say it nicely…”. Even Don Brash was going to consult with Māori about the abolition of the Māori seats. I say to those Māori who were National Party supporters who fled the party under Don Brash’s leadership that the John Key and Bill English co-leadership is far more extreme than the Brash leadership ever was. Mr Key and Mr English will not even consult with Māori on one of the single biggest issues of our time.

Last week the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Minister with responsibility for Child, Youth and Family, acknowledged during question time that the department is responding to United Future’s call for a complaints authority to provide a place of recourse for adults dealing with her department. Although United Future is thrilled to hear that a work stream is developing on this issue, we want to make it perfectly clear exactly what it is we are asking the Government to consider. Our call has been for an independent complaints authority, with independence similar to that of the Police Complaints Authority. The independence of such an authority is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, it is necessary because of the statutory powers that Child, Youth and Family has to execute serious interventions into families, based on a lower burden of proof than is required by the police seeking an arrest warrant. United Future understands and supports the need for this lesser burden of proof due to the very private and highly confidential nature of abuse within family contexts. However, this necessarily liberal approach to legal interventions only strengthens our insistence that decisions should be subject to independent scrutiny if and when a family member believes he or she has been wrongly judged and/or dealt with in an unfair manner.

The second reason we believe that this complaints authority should be independent is that we want complainants to have faith in the process. A complaints department at the local Child, Youth and Family office, for example, is far too much self-referral for a department that has such immense and wide-reaching powers. United Future does not see the outcome of such an authority as being punitive. Identifying systemic weaknesses and poor practice should be for the purpose of correction and continuous improvement. Quality assurance activities should be the normal response to a complaint being upheld either fully or partly. United Future’s suggestion is that if in the opinion of the proposed complaints authority serious misconduct by a social worker has occurred, then it is the social worker’s registration body, not the authority, that should decide that person’s fate.

What, then, could this new authority look like and what could it be in practice? United Future notes that the Police Complaints Authority receives approximately 2,000 complaints a year, and about 13 percent are upheld. This works out to be about 343 complainants. Most complaints are resolved through mediation. About six or seven staff work there, and it costs around $1.5 million to $2 million a year. This is a small outlay for the credibility it gives to police work in New Zealand, and a similar situation could apply to the independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family that we are proposing.

When families feel so backed into a corner that they join forces with others to name and shame Child, Youth and Family workers on a website, then the best action this Government could take to protect its staff is to provide an independent complaints authority so that issues can be fairly investigated and addressed. United Future is not proposing a “shame and blame” authority, but an open and transparent investigative process that gives both complainants and Child, Youth and Family staff the chance to appropriately articulate their position in a way that is helpful and able to bring closure to a dispute. In short, we believe that this independent complaints authority would be a vast improvement on the current situation. It would allow people who feel that they have been wrongly dealt with some recourse, and it should result in a far better system for the all-important goal of the complaints authority, which is, of course, to protect on an ongoing basis the best interests of the beautiful children of New Zealand.

One of the worst reality programmes ever produced is playing in a town near us. It is playing right here in Wellington, and it is called “The Taito Phillip Field Saga” or, better still, “50 Steps Too Far”. It has all the ingredients of every bad show one can think of—deceit, denial, cover-ups, disgraceful behaviour, and allegations of bribery and corruption. The name of one such reality show—The Biggest Loser—sums it all up. Unfortunately, the biggest losers in this case are the New Zealand taxpayers, who for months have paid Taito Phillip Field to do nothing. Also, we must not forget the workers who have been exploited and ripped off in the process. We have to ask ourselves what Labour really means in relation to its much-vaunted ideology of standing up for the workers. Clearly, Labour members have not stood up for the workers in this case. The workers have been left and hung out to dry. It is an absolute disgrace.

Helen Clark has directed the whole show. Her latest production is, as John Key so aptly describes it, “The Grand Coalition of the Unwilling”. Or perhaps it would be best called “Survivor”, because that is what this saga is all about—cynical political survival. Clinging on to power is all that motivates this desperate and dangerous Government now. How else can Helen Clark justify accepting the proxy vote of someone whom she has just slung out of caucus—someone she has described as immoral and unethical? Previously she said this person had been vindicated by a half-million-dollar Clayton’s inquiry. It was an inquiry that she set the parameters of, so that she got the result she wanted. But she has not been getting the results she wanted of late, because one day she has this person’s proxy vote, but the next day she does not. Of course, this person was absent from the House yesterday, speaking with the police.

If we want to talk about denial, the former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain has to take the cake. He denied any involvement in the overstayer’s case, despite meeting the overstayer at the member’s house in Samoa. Another name that features in this sorry saga is that of Damien O’Connor. He is also starring in a few other bad-news reality shows called “Problem Gambling” and “Corrections and Parole”. We certainly know what is happening in each one of those episodes. If we take “Problem Gambling”, talk about a lack of ministerial responsibility in the construct and oversight of contracts! If we take “Corrections and Parole”, there have been constant failures and a lack of accountability and responsibility in those two areas. But, just like all those reality shows, bad management, wasting money, and no responsibility are par for the course under this current regime.

Long gone are the days of Helen Clark’s so-called collegial Cabinet. We see it time and time again with this Government—cover-ups and an endless supply of stuff-ups and shameful acts of irresponsibility. One of Helen Clark’s own Ministers was once quoted as saying: “She demands very high standards of herself.” Are these the same high standards she employed during the disgraceful episode of “speedgate”, “Doone-gate”, and “paintergate”, just to name a few, or is it a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”? Never mind, Helen says that she will reveal all in her autobiography.

There should be enough material in that for a full-length feature film. After all, Ruth Dyson was sin-binned for drinking and driving, Marian Hobbs was done for location perks, and Parekura Horomia is rolling through the credits unscathed while his ministry, the Ministry of Māori Affairs, cannot even justify its own expenditure. He was castigated by the Auditor-General for failing to be able to account for the expenditure of a whole ministry. In my view that is an incredibly serious matter. Where is that on the airwaves? Nobody is standing up and saying: “Hey, I’m responsible for that.”—certainly not Parekura Horomia—and no way is Helen going anywhere near that. I can think of nothing worse than having a ministry that cannot even account for its own expenditure.

The teflon is finally wearing off. The audience is about to call time. It has had enough of this Government’s failed ideologies and its insistence that the State knows best and should be in control of everything. The cast of this show has truly lost the plot. We have only to look at what is happening with the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act in relation to the children-smacking bill. We have received a huge number of emails on that issue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I call the honourable member—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to read from this last page—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no.

I seek leave to table this document, which states: “This show is due to be canned in 2008. And to Helen Clark I say, in the words of Donald Trump, ‘You’re fired!’.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there is any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

There has been a wee gap since I last spoke in this House. But as I was saying before being temporarily interrupted by the 2005 election, I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that is about delivery and a sustainable future, about uninterrupted economic growth, about reducing unemployment—something a National Government never achieved—to the second-lowest rate in the OECD, about promoting thousands of Modern Apprenticeships and industry training, about setting up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and launching KiwiSaver this year, about delivering cheaper doctors’ visits and prescriptions, and about delivering to thousands of families through our Working for Families package. Some of the issues I mentioned in my inaugural speech were delivery for women through the Action Plan for New Zealand Women, education investment and the tertiary education revamp, a legacy of good housing for the people, and investment in public health. The Labour Government has delivered on those issues and continues to deliver on them.

In contrast to the positive vision and reference to the real issues in the Prime Minister’s speech last week—real issues like climate change and commitment to carbon neutrality, Working for Families, new family violence prevention strategies, 20 hours of free early childhood education, providing a sustainable pathway forward for New Zealand—what I heard in the House yesterday and today from the so-called Opposition, which I have heard from those members for months, was the usual sound and fury, signifying nothing. There was carping and whingeing, and groaning irrelevancies. There was not one glimmer of a good idea, or even a bad idea. There was no vision and no reference to actual policy.

Just as Mr Key’s lame attempt at a food in schools programme was gone by lunchtime when he realised his hollow mistake, the National Party confirmed yesterday and today that its members are the hollow men. There was no substance and no reality. There was a ghostly wraith of echoing nothingness. But, wait. Perhaps the National Party nothingness will be filled with market rents, as Moana Mackey has just referred to, benefit cuts, an Employment Contracts Act to penalise workers, asset sales, and the creation of an underclass. After all, National has done it all before. There is such a dearth of talent in National’s ranks and they are so deeply divided in the leadership stakes and on the backbench ranks. Let us think about where Brian Connell is. He has been left hanging somewhere, I believe.

Lockwood Smith was surprised by Mr Key’s flip-flop on nuclear policy, Bill and John are differing on the mortgage levy idea. Mr English said: “I am easily underestimated.”, and “I do the policy and write the speeches.” Mr English is not ruling out having another go at the leadership. He sent the “hollow men” emails that rather deeply attacked a number of his National colleagues, but they are so deeply divided that falling back on the old, the tired, and the outdated must look good. It certainly appears to look good to Mr Key who has, as recently as December last year and this very month, managed to say: “So really, in a sense, all I changed is probably the tone.”; “Broadly speaking, we weren’t planning to make major changes.”; and, wait, this is a really good one—it is the most telling of all—Mr Key said: “If you go back to the 1990s we proved what National believed in, in the 1990s.”

Let me think. Was not that market rentals, benefit cuts, bulk funding of schools, the Employment Contracts Act, the destruction of the apprenticeship system, and bed night charges in hospitals? Yes, it was. And who is writing Mr Key’s speeches? It is the puppet master Mr English, the disastrous 1990s Minister of Health and Associate Minister of Education, who fortunately will never rise to such positions again.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.