General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We saw something interesting in the House this afternoon. Mr Key, Mr English, and Mr Brownlee asked questions of the same Minister. Mr Brownlee was the most effective, Mr English was the best prepared, and Mr Key was a total flop. What that tells us is that the honeymoon is coming to an end for the new National Party leadership. It is marked by two major trends: first, the growing differences between the two leaders, Mr English and Mr Key; and, secondly, the mounting pile of flip-flops on policy.

Mr Key’s problem is that he knows what he wants; he wants to be Prime Minister. But his problem is that he does not know why he wants the job nor what he wants to do with it, and that is becoming clearer and clearer. This is a man who does not even know where he lives. Where does Mr Key live?

💬 Hon Member: It’s pathetic.

Indeed, it is pathetic. Mr English is right—it is pathetic that Mr Key does not know where he lives.

On Agenda on Saturday morning there was a great debate around Hobsonville, where Mr Key says he lives. Well, what is the palace on three sections in Parnell about then? Is that the holiday home for Mr Key? Is that not where he actually lives? Or does he just live there for electoral purposes, whereas for social purposes he lives in Parnell? The thing about the Hobsonville debate is that it is about housing. Mr Key wants to give muesli bars to the underclass, but he wants to give them muesli bars to keep them away from living in Hobsonville—in his electorate. The last thing he wants is to have State houses in Hobsonville and have to explain that to his voters.

But what about the differences? I rehearsed those yesterday. Mr English is now the new fiscal conservative. He said there is no room for large tax cuts. A week before Mr English’s statement Mr Key said that there was plenty of room and that there was not an inflation problem. Then he said—after Mr English—that they are not big tax cuts anyway, and that National was never going to have big bang tax cuts. Well, what was all that excitement in the press gallery about, I wonder? When it was all taken away from them, I noticed that it was not even reported on television—no tax cuts.

Then, of course, we have had all these other ones. Mr Key said that National will not have a bar of the Exclusive Brethren—not even a muesli bar. Then Mr English goes and meets them in his electorate office in Invercargill!

💬 Hon Bill English: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member seeks leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection?

In the middle of a speech—yes, there is. The member should make it at the end. There is objection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a personal explanation?

💬 Hon Bill English: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

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

So Mr English meets the Exclusive Brethren, and now we are beginning to realise why the honeymoon lasted as long as it did. Mr Key and Mr English could not agree which way up to hold the sex manual during the honeymoon. That was the problem they faced.

Then, of course, we have had all these promises about spending. Just this afternoon Mr English said that we should cut Government spending, and Mr Ryall said that we need more money for radiotherapy, Dr Blue said that we need more money for Herceptin, and Mr Finlayson said that we need more money for Waitangi Treaty settlements. Mr Key says that we should have free lunches and free breakfasts, and that we should pour money into sport and into community-based solutions; Mr English says we should cut back Government spending. It is just this series of flip-flops—flip-flops on every topic, one after another.

It is because of Mr Key’s weakness. When he is faced with a question from the media that he does not like and that exposes a problem in National’s policy, he backs off from the policy. It is not thought through. He never thought through the policy on State house rentals. There was no discussion in the National Party caucus about backing off from State houses going to market rentals. He just responded to a question and said: “I am out of here”—and Dr Smith is nodding his head in disagreement. That just goes to show what happens.

Mr Key even said on Agenda—members should get this one—“We made it quite clear that National would not have sent troops to Iraq.” Well, hang on a minute. At the time Mr English said that National would have sent troops to Iraq. Dr Brash said, when he was leader, that if he had been there at the time, they would have sent troops to Iraq, but later on he changed his mind. Why did Mr Key say that? Because he knows that New Zealanders did not want to send troops to Iraq. Yet, of course, he claims: “All I want to do is to change the tone of things.” The tone of things! Iraq, market-based rentals, and everything else is out of the window and jettisoned.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

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

💬 Hon Members: What’s it about?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): About what?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have given me leave, and the Government is continuing to interject.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I have sought leave for the member but it has not been given because members of the Government want to know what the personal explanation is about.

It is in regard to Dr Cullen’s allegations concerning the Exclusive Brethren.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is given leave.

Last week I carried out, as I sometimes do, a constituent clinic in Eric Roy’s office in Invercargill. I was seeing constituents when a journalist from the Sunday Star-Times came into my office and said to me that he recognised some people out there who were Brethren. I told the journalist that they must be constituents whose names were on the list and were coming to see me with issues. The journalist, with whom I have dealt with on other matters, subsequently left. I continued seeing constituents, as I do, about their whole range of issues and thought nothing more of it until the Sunday Star-Times decided that apparently some people, because of their religious affiliations, have no right to turn up to a constituency clinic. I explained to the Sunday Star-Times that I do not screen constituents on the basis of their religious affiliation—in this case, I had no idea what their religious affiliation was—and, what is more, I do not intend to.

I regard it as a fundamental right of every New Zealand citizen—and, in fact, of people who are not New Zealand citizens who come to see me and who may be illegally in the country—to attend a constituent clinic without being harassed by the media. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to those constituents who came to see me about a completely normal constituency matter after making an appointment to come to my office and who found themselves on the front page of a national newspaper. Their confidence in the parliamentary system was violated. Their trust in the journalist—and my trust in that newspaper—has been violated. I assert in this House, despite the fact that Helen Clark and the Labour Party do not like some New Zealanders, that those people have a right to come to my constituency clinics, and they will continue to be allowed to do so. I would hope that is the rule that all MPs in this House will follow, and I believe they do.

I informed the editor of the newspaper that in recent weeks I have dealt with people who have been subject to allegations of child abuse, I have dealt with convicted rapists, I have dealt with people who believe they are under surveillance by the police, and I have dealt with people who live completely normal and blameless lives. It is unacceptable to me, and very unfortunate, that the media and the Labour Party believe that some New Zealand citizens must not talk to their member of Parliament. I want to reassure my constituents—all 55,000 of them—that they are free to come to my constituency office if they ring up and make an appointment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, that was not a personal explanation, at all, because it was not about the member’s actions. Mr English confirmed that he saw Exclusive Brethren and did not tell us what they talked about at that meeting. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): What I want is what everyone wants in this world, and that is order.

Nothing Dr Cullen says can avoid the public sense of outrage that two people died at the hands of our justice system. And no one is accountable—no one. Dr Cullen came down to the House yesterday and moralised on how good people did their best. I say to him that it does not matter whether good people did their best: Liam Ashley was fed to a monster by the Government. Karl Kuchenbecker was fed to a killer by the Government—by the Parole Board, the Department of Corrections, and the probation service.

Here is the story about Graeme Burton—some of it, anyway. He missed a home visit in October. He was not there when the probation officer visited. On 30 November this well-managed offender’s home was raided by the armed offenders squad. He was on the zero-tolerance list. The armed offenders squad rang the probation service and said: “This guy’s not here, and he should be.” The probation service said: “Have a look in the fridge.” They did, and because there was food in it the probation service said: “That’s fine with us.” The Government said it is OK, the chief of the Department of Corrections said the case was well managed, and the Minister said—well, I do not know what he said, because Labour will not let him say anything. Oh, he said he was apologetic because we have raised it. The Prime Minister says that so many Ministers are in charge that no one can be held responsible. The guy Kuchenbecker is dead, and no one cares!

Actually, this case is as bad as the Liam Ashley case—a case where every skerrick of common sense told one that putting a mixed-up 15-year-old into a van with a convicted serious killer was a stupid thing to do. Imagine what experience Liam Ashley had in the back of that van—imagine it! It was a desperate, terrifying, paralysing, suffocating, deadly experience. The public believe that the Government should be protecting us—Karl Kuchenbecker and Liam Ashley—from people who are known to be dangerous, and Burton was known to be dangerous. He had breached parole several times, and, despite the fact that he was on the zero-tolerance list, the armed offenders squad raided his home. He was not there. He was in breach of his parole. The probation officer went on holiday—just like William Duane Bell. And that is why the public is angry.

They are angry because the Government has no sense of honour relative to its obligation, and of the terrible consequences of failing in that obligation. The public want to see and think that it matters enough to Helen Clark that she will take action to ensure such occurrences do not happen again, and to show the accountability to make it happen. If I were a probation officer, I would now know that I have the protection of the Prime Minister against anything I do. If I were a security officer involved in transporting dangerous prisoners, I would know that if I do something really stupid, like putting a kid in the back of a van with a cold-blooded murderer and the kid gets murdered, the Labour Party will defend me. That is what it is doing: it is defending stupid people who did the wrong thing and who caused violent deaths to harmless New Zealand citizens.

Those members opposite still do not get it. My colleague John Key is right; they care more about Labour than about the public. Helen Clark’s mantra is never to apologise—or to apologise only for things one did not do 50 years ago. But her mantra is never to apologise, never to concede, and never to look like one is not on top. The price that will be paid is the next death at the hands of the Department of Corrections.

I want to spend my time, of course, talking about the problems of the National Party. But first, I want to acknowledge that Bill English has raised a very serious argument this afternoon. Yesterday, I understand, there was an urgent debate, in which Dr Michael Cullen outlined very clearly what the Labour-led Government is doing. I want to mention to people who are listening at home—because that was a passionate, angry, heartfelt speech by Mr English—that yesterday Bill English sat and laughed through the debate on that very issue. He sat and laughed.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That accusation is untrue. Yesterday I did express some amusement at the pathetic attempts of Dr Cullen to argue that he had no responsibility. I take deep offence, which I am allowed to do—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated for a minute, please. The member is claiming misrepresentation, and there is a time and place to do that: at the end of a speech. The member should look at the Speakers’ rulings on that matter.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the allegation by that Minister that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I was watching the speech. What has been referred to—when Mr English was laughing yesterday—was not during my speech; it was during Mr Key’s speech. Mr English was not the only member of the National Party front bench to laugh at times during Mr Key’s speech on an extraordinarily serious matter, related to the death of Karl Kuchenbecker. I think that was rather typified today, when Mr Key raised the point that for Mr O’Connor to apologise personally, up front, face to face with the family, was somehow less important than grandstanding in Parliament and apologising.

💬 Hon Bill English: Dr Cullen’s point is irrelevant. I have taken offence, and I have asked that the member withdraw and apologise—and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is a matter of fact that Mr English was laughing during Mr Key’s speech. He cannot take offence at somebody pointing out a matter of fact.

💬 Hon Bill English: This is a highly unusual process to follow over a matter where a member has taken offence. Mr Maharey’s allegation was not that I laughed during John Key’s speech; it was that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter. I have taken offence, and you will either follow the Standing Orders, Mr Assistant Speaker, or you will not. Please let us know what you are going to do. I have taken offence; I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise.

I am happy to take the member’s word on this matter, but I just want to say before I get to this thing— we are having an unusual debate here—that I would expect the same from the member in respect of members on this side of the House. Does he think for a single second that there is anybody in the country, never mind on this side of the House, who does not take this matter seriously? I think that if he is to demand that people regard his behaviour with the kind of respect he is asking for now, then he should give people respect himself. On that note, I say that I accept the member’s word and I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I just say that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond. If there is any course of action to be taken on that, then it is a matter for the Speaker to deal with, through a matter of privilege.

💬 Hon Bill English: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr English—the member has apologised.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a well-known procedure here, to which we stick—and we stick to it because it is important that we do so—which is that when members withdraw and apologise, they get up and that is all they say. It is not acceptable to do it at the end of a speech, at the beginning of a speech, or in the middle of a speech. That member is required to get up, withdraw and apologise, and sit down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr English; that is right. Would the member please do that.

I withdraw and apologise.

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have taken extraordinary offence on behalf of all other members in this House at the member’s implication, throughout his passionate, angry, and heartfelt speech, that there are people in this House who, unlike himself, do not feel sincerely that what happened in both those cases was wrong and disgusting, that they would not want to see that happen again, and that they would not move heaven and earth to make sure it does not. I take offence at that, and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Bill English: That member is a senior member who knows that he cannot take offence on behalf of other members, and that if he wants to take offence he has to take offence at something I have said about him. In my whole speech, I did not mention him. I mentioned Dr Cullen, Helen Clark, and the Labour Party.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members can take offence only on their own behalf, not on behalf of anybody else. I would now like to get the debate back on an even keel—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do take offence at what Bill English said. I did not laugh at all yesterday at what anybody said in that debate. I did not smile or laugh—and Mr English knows that he did—during that debate. He smiled and laughed, as did a number of his colleagues. And I take deep offence at what he said in his speech today, implying that I did not care about what had happened. I would have thought the speech yesterday made it very clear, firstly, that I cared and, secondly, that there is responsibility and accountability that needs to be acknowledged and remedies that have to be engaged in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that good order—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Mr Assistant Speaker, you have just forced a member to withdraw and apologise for stating a fact. As long as a member takes offence, then the other member should withdraw and apologise. I take deep offence at what Mr English said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will quote here Speaker’s ruling 42/2: “If a member against whom the reference is made objects, it will be ruled out. But if that member takes no objection it will only be ruled out if it is offensive on the face of it.” Therefore, as offence has been taken, I request the member to withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: You might also read a bit further in your Standing Orders, Mr Assistant Speaker, to where it says that if offence is taken, the member should call it to the attention of the House immediately. Twenty minutes, perhaps, have passed now since Mr English spoke, and it was not until Mr Maharey raised the matter on behalf of the party, and it then became clear it should be an individual situation, that Dr Cullen raised the issue. I suspect, for good grace should you rule it so, that the appropriate apology would then be offered.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much for the offer, Mr Brownlee. I request the member to do so.

💬 Hon Bill English: I am happy to do so if Dr Cullen can, in compliance with the Standing Orders, tell me what I actually said—the remark made about him that he has taken offence to. A member cannot take offence at the tone of a speech or its general argument; offence has to be taken at something said in respect of the member. In my recollection, that did not occur. But I would be happy to hear Dr Cullen’s version of it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We seem just to be going round in circles.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Mr English, in his own point of order just a few minutes ago, stated that he did make such comments, and that it was up to myself or Helen Clark—who is not here, of course—to take offence. I do take offence at the implications of what he said in that respect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say again that all members in this House are honourable members, and their word is unreservedly accepted. That being the case, I think it is time that both sides moved on. I now call the Hon Steve Maharey.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that Mr English himself pointed out before that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise, he or she rises and does so without comment. Mr English rose and said that he was happy to withdraw and apologise, and then went on to comment at length—and we still have not heard the withdrawal and apology. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Steve Maharey does have a point there. I ask Mr English—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be considered trifling with the House if members, one after the other, were to stand up and say that they took offence at something, whatever it might be—to the general tone of a speech that was given some time ago. That would be trifling with the House; it would breach the Standing Orders. All that has been asked for here is for Dr Cullen to say what was so offensive to him personally in the speech given by Bill English—what was specific to Dr Cullen.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that Mr English had offered to withdraw and apologise—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What for?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): —and then he continued. So I ask Mr English to withdraw and apologise on that issue, please—to stand and withdraw.

💬 Hon Bill English: Look, I referred—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—I am on my feet, Mr English. Would you please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Bill English: Mr Assistant Speaker, in order to maintain the Standing Orders—look, I am happy to leave the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, Mr English, be seated. I am on my feet. I am not asking the member to leave the House. I am trying to show some tolerance here, for a situation that has got a little out of hand. The member himself actually rose to withdraw and apologise, and then added something to it. I am asking him to think seriously, and then we can go back and he can raise a point of order. I ask him to withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What are you asking Mr English to withdraw for? What was the offence?

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

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Was it just for a general dislike of the tone of that speech, because—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Brownlee, please be seated. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise because he offered to do so. He actually did rise to do that, and then he carried on—which was the point that the Hon Steve Maharey raised. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise, without adding any of the extra bits that he did. That is where we are back to, I tell the member.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What Mr English said when you asked him to withdraw was that he would be happy to do so, if he knew what it was for. Then he went on to ask what he had said that was so offensive. It staggers me that Labour Party members can, some 2 months after the event, start beating their breast and saying how sorry they are about Karl Kuchenbecker’s death, when they have for so long been defending the indefensible, running around hoping that this issue would go away, and hoping that their backsides would be covered—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can the member be seated. [Interruption] The member will be seated, please. You know, Mr Brownlee, that Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order must be terse and to the point. I was not aware of, or misunderstood, what Mr English was doing. If Mr English is now saying he wishes to know what the apology is for, then I will permit that. But that was not my understanding of the situation, and I am sure Hansard will show that.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: As it is now abundantly clear that any withdrawal and apology would be insincere and without honour, I withdraw my request.

As one commentator has put it, the honeymoon for Mr Key, the leader of the National Party, is over, and what we are doing now is trying to find out—as the commentator put it—whether there is wood beneath the veneer that Mr Key represents. As that assessment says, Mr Key is now known as a man of sizzle, but is not really understood to be a man of substance.

In Mr Key’s maiden speech as leader, we know he talked a lot about a State house upbringing, about how he was a passionate rugby player—although he does not remember the Springbok Tour—and about how he went away to London to become a currency trader, before returning to seek the leadership of this nation. To bolster up his leadership, he has gone out on a series of forays into poor housing districts. He went around a series of people at McGehan Close. Those people now say they felt used by those visits. He went to a local school and offered the children muesli bars, which local people said they did not need or want.

During all of that sizzle, there was no policy. But now Mr Key is under a bit of pressure, and as a result he has had to start talking about policy. But, having no policy of his own, he is doing something extremely clever: he is adopting Labour policy. In fact, that has led to so many flip-flops by the National Party that its members are now nailing up above their offices, all over the country, signs to go alongside the National Party signs. Those signs state “Jandals ’R Us”. The National Party has so many flip-flops that “Jandals ’R Us” is the new title for that party. “No nukes” is now its policy, superannuation is OK, the foreshore and seabed legislation will stay as it is, and the real doozy, I think, is a policy of having no market rents for State houses.

That policy is interesting, because it goes right to the heart of National Party philosophy. National Party people say they stand for people buying their own houses, as opposed to paying all those awful State house rents. I see Mr Williamson—the far-right extremist—grinning away over there. He knows that the idea that the National Party now agrees with the policy of building State houses and having income-related rents will stick in his craw, as someone on the extreme right of the National Party.

Flip-flops can also be seen with regard to the 20 free hours early childhood education policy. What an extraordinary policy National has on that issue. I say to Opposition members that I will put $100 down in a wager that by the next election it will be the National Party’s policy to back 20 hours’ free early childhood education. I ask Maurice Williamson whether he will take me on for that. Will Gerry Brownlee take me on for that? Will Bill take me on for that? I wager $100 that the National Party will adopt the policy it now says it is fighting against.

Meanwhile, this is what we have to put up with. The National Party says that the families of this country will love the 20 free hours policy—that was said by Bill English. The National Party also says it will scrap that policy, because National’s policy is to have a tax credit. People will have to save up their chits all year in their kitchen drawers, taken them down to the Inland Revenue Department, file them with the big bureaucracy there, and get the money back at the end of the year, having paid it out over the year. That is the policy of the National Party, which hates bureaucracy! That party hates public servants. It hates them, yet it wants to build up more and more of them to run that tax credit policy on early childhood education.

Last night we learnt from Paula Bennett—what a rocket scientist that woman is proving to be—that it is not good enough that the 20 free hours policy, which she hates and is campaigning against, is only for 3 to 4-year-olds. She wants it to apply to all under-5-year-olds. I could not believe it! National is the tax-cut party. Paula Bennett is fresh off the street and has been promoted to National’s front line. As Mr Winston Peters said today, if she is the answer, the question being asked of the National Party is wrong—that is all we can say. Paula Bennett made a billion-dollar promise in the House last night, while National’s leader is trying to run a policy of massive tax cuts.

The National Party also says the 20 free hours policy should not be promoted. National says people will not take it up, but we should not promote it. National says we should not promote that $340 million - policy—for God’s sake—because people will find out about it, and then they might come to use early childhood education services. That is an extraordinary flip-flop—a “Jandals ’R Us Party”.

The year 2007 is Export Year—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Ha, ha!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: It may very well be that Gerry Brownlee would laugh, and we would expect him to laugh because we know that he does not care about exports. We know that the National Party does not care about exports and we know that National Party members will laugh, because they do not care about farmers. They do not care about farmers, and it is about farmers whom I want to speak.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep, deep offence at the mistruths and reckless behaviour regarding the truth, being exhibited towards me by Mr Woolerton at the present time. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will just say that frivolous objections or points of order designed to break up a speech lead to disorder and are unacceptable to progress in the House. I say to Mr Woolerton that I am sorry but I was distracted with the Clerk at the time. The member has taken offence. I did not hear what was actually said, so I am not sure.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: The statement made by Mr Woolerton was about the National Party; it was not about an individual member sitting on that side of the House. Therefore I know that under the Standing Orders offence cannot be taken by an individual, as a result.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much. The member will continue.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Williamson, I have already spoken about frivolous objections.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes, I am very clear.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If I am not happy with this then Mr Woolerton will start his speech again.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I can tell you now very clearly, and I am happy to go on the record and I am happy to go before the Privileges Committee, that Mr Woolerton singled out Gerry Brownlee by name. He said that Gerry Brownlee does not care about farmers, if you check the tape. I think Mr Woolerton will have the grace to say that he did actually say “Gerry Brownlee”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Whether it is seen as a personal reflection is another matter. The reality is that members make disparaging remarks about each other all of the time. It is when offence is taken at a personal reflection that members are actually asked to withdraw. Is the member taking personal offence? [Interruption] He is. I ask the member to withdraw.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Mr Speaker, I am—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to withdraw please.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.

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

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your protection from bullies.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are a couple of things. The first point is I think it was inappropriate for you to suggest that some frivolous activity was going on here, when we have just been through the absolute debacle led by Michael Cullen a few minutes before. Secondly, if Mr Woolerton is to withdraw and apologise, he should stand, do just that, and then recommence his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you Mr Brownlee. Can I say—[Interruption] No, can I just say that I asked Mr Woolerton to withdraw. The member will withdraw and continue.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, I appreciate your protection from bullies—I really do—and I think you are doing a marvellous job in the Chair.

It is obvious that the National Party is going to filibuster but we will rely on the public to make a judgment on that. As I said before, 2007 is Export Year and New Zealand First is very proud because it is one of our initiatives.

We need world-class companies in this country. We need companies that have world-class products. We have one in Fonterra. It has been built up over many, many years by farmers in this country. This company is at the leading edge of exporting in this country. It is at the leading edge of products worldwide. New Zealand First is passionate about companies such as Fonterra and about the fact that the ownership of such companies should stay in New Zealand hands—and, in this case, in farmers’ hands.

About a month ago I responded to an article in the New Zealand Herald, written by an Auckland academic, that said one of the options Fonterra was looking at in a capital restructuring programme it was considering was to list the company in part or in whole on the New Zealand sharemarket. The gentleman said that if that were to be so, Fonterra would be lost to the farmers of New Zealand. In a press release I responded that I agreed with him and that I believed that if that company was listed, it would be lost to farmers. After that press release was put out I had a ring from the Fonterra chairman, who said he believed I was confusing the farmers and my comments were not helpful. I have greater faith in New Zealand farmers than he does, obviously. I know that farmers can work out what they should do with their company. I believe that farmers understand that if Fonterra was listed it would be lost to them, and I believe that the directors of Fonterra should desist from going down the path of listing Fonterra on the stock market in part or, indeed, in whole. It is not necessary for Fonterra to go down that path. This is the biggest company in New Zealand; it is our most innovative company, and it is essential to the health of this country.

I am not standing up here just waffling on about a little issue that is of some concern locally. This is of vital interest to the country. I do not believe that the Fonterra board has the interests of farmers at heart if it could even consider listing this company on the stock market in part or in whole. I challenge the Fonterra directors and the chairman to come out and say how they will keep that company in farmers’ hands, if indeed they do list it. They have said they are passionate about keeping the company in New Zealand farmers’ hands, that ownership will not be an issue, and that it will not be allowed to go into the hands of financiers and takeover artists.

We know that it is impossible for that to happen, and I challenge the directors of Fonterra to tell New Zealand and their farmer shareholders how they will accomplish that feat. We have watched, over the years, company after company of iconic standing in this country go to overseas owners—many of them to Australia, and many of them to American and English owners.

The interesting thing this afternoon is that Labour speakers have chosen not to speak a single word about their own policy. They have chosen not to offer a single defence of their current governance of this country. Rather, they have concentrated entirely on non-existent issues, as far as they are concerned, in Opposition parties. They have loudly proclaimed that everybody else has a problem but that they are OK. Well, we know that when a political party is in trouble, the last thing its members want to do is talk about themselves.

The issues causing a problem for the Labour Government at the present time are ones that New Zealanders will be most unforgiving of. The first issue is the debacle in the Department of Corrections and the failure of the Parole Board, and the terrible tragedies that resulted from that in the case of the release of Graeme Burton. It was awful to see Government members today, and a little bit yesterday, trying to be very righteous about all of this, and trying to say how terribly remorseful they are about the losses those families suffered, when in fact we know that it has taken them almost 2 months to get to this position. Up to this point they have not offered a single apology to the public of New Zealand, and they have never offered a single hope that they might really be looking at these issues with a view towards fixing them. They have simply gone back in their burrows and decided that they are going to protect the incompetent Damien O’Connor, that they are not going to put on to the front line the Minister responsible for justice in this country, Mark Burton, and that they are somehow going to try to tough it out by letting the Prime Minister get involved, backed up by Michael Cullen.

Well, it will not work, because the sad facts of this case are starting to come out. Graeme Burton was nothing but trouble in prison. He assaulted several other inmates. He tried to organise paid hits on guards. Given the current state of the Department of Corrections, we cannot help wondering whether it really wanted to get him out of there because it was too dangerous to keep him. Graeme Burton went before the Parole Board—a bunch of people who are supposed to represent the community’s views about whether someone should be released from prison—and board members were made aware of all those facts. They got a psychological assessment, which said they should not release the guy because he was mad and would reoffend. They did not receive that report just once, twice, or three times; they received that report five times. But still they said they would let him out.

Then the people who should have been keeping an eye on him—the people in the probation service who should have made sure that he conformed with his parole requirements—failed miserably in their duty. They failed so miserably that we have heard over and over today that when there was an armed offenders alert around Graeme Burton, it all petered out. The probation officer said Graeme Burton might not be at the address he was supposed to be at, but if, on looking in the fridge, any food was found there, that was good enough—the probation service would be prepared to accept he was living there. That would be OK. Where was Graeme Burton? He was out making mayhem in the community, which ultimately led to the death of an innocent young father.

For Government members to say, as Michael Cullen did yesterday, that the only person to blame was Graeme Burton himself because he pulled the trigger, is unacceptable, because society had said it wanted him put away. But the people who represent society on the Parole Board, despite all the evidence—the extraordinary evidence—said that they would let him out. So the question simply is that if Damien O’Connor is not to blame and the Prime Minister is not to blame, why is the Parole Board still in office?

It is four months on from the election of John Key as the leader of the National Party, and clearly this week the honeymoon is over. It has been a dreadful week for John Key. It started with the Agenda programme on television on Saturday morning. I have to say that even I felt embarrassed, notwithstanding the fact that the person I was embarrassed for was the Leader of the Opposition. Lisa Owen began the interview by saying there was a real question out in the community as to “whether Key was all publicity and no policy”. More and more, people are seeing that. They are seeing spin and strutting; they are not seeing substance and policy. Gerry Brownlee asked where our policy is. We articulate our policy and put it into effect every day. There is no policy on the other side of the House.

John Key got a snap debate on a tragic mistake that was made, leading to the death of a man in the Hutt Valley, and he blew it. He blew it because he could not address the substance of the problem. He did not look as though he wanted to find a solution; he looked as though he wanted to massage the issue. We saw that again in the House today. John Key accused the Minister of Corrections of not apologising. Damien O’Connor had gone personally to the family of the man who was killed and had said how sorry he was about what had happened. Damien O’Connor does not do what John Key does. He does not go up to a place without care, without concern, totally insincerely, and make a media occasion out of it. Damien O’Connor went to the family and said how dreadfully sorry we were about the death—as, indeed, are all New Zealanders.

John Key has blown it, not only because he lacks the substance and the experience but also because he has a man who sits beside him, Mr Bill English, who wants only one thing: to get revenge on John Key because he committed the act of treachery. John Key turned up at Bill English’s home on the night before the day of the leadership election in 2003 and said he would be supporting Bill English the next day, yet the next day he turned his vote and got Don Brash elected. It is no wonder that Mr English sits there and daily undermines John Key; he will never forget that act of treachery. Mr English will never be satisfied until he sees John Key go the same way that Mr English engineered for Don Brash to go. Let us ask not who leaked the emails; let us look at the deputy leader of the National Party. He is the one who set out, in a machiavellian way, to undermine Don Brash, and he did so. He did that very effectively. That is why John Key is so fearful of the man who sits alongside him.

But John Key has some other things to answer for. I heard Bill English deny that he had met the Exclusive Brethren about any political matter, and I accept the word of the honourable member. I accepted the word of John Key when he said that he had seen the Exclusive Brethren, but that it was not to talk about politics. But then the next day an email turned up from the Exclusive Brethren to say that after the discussion the Exclusive Brethren had had with Mr Key, they wanted to put a million dollars into getting National elected. John Key went on TV before that was disclosed, and said that he knew nothing about the pamphlets and that he knew nothing about the campaign. Then that email was released, which made him look like a liar, and John Key said he had never opened the email—nobody had shown it to him. That email promised the National Party $1 million, and no aide told John there was someone who wanted to give him a million dollars? “Yeah, right!” the Tui billboard would say about that.

We have seen the flip-flops, and they are incredible. John Key said on that Agenda programme that National had made it clear it would never have sent troops to Iraq. Don Brash said that he would have sent troops. Worse than that, John Key said he believed that the Americans should go to Iraq, but that New Zealand would not follow. So he did not have the courage of his convictions. We know National would have sent troops. We remember what Simon Power said: that whatever the British, the Americans, or the Australians tell us to do, National would do. He said that to the National Party conference, and he was caught out and sacked as spokesperson on defence—not because he said that, but because he was caught out and the media ran a story on it. There have been so many flip-flops from National. On 1 April there was meant to be $3 billion worth of tax cuts. Bill English said there would have been none now.

It is always hilarious to hear Mr Goff talking about flip-flops. This was the man who, on a Saturday afternoon, defended his legislation that would have decriminalised some sexual activity between 12-year-olds. Within 24 hours he was backing away from that, and saying he was never meaning to do that and would never do it again. The bits of the legislation that would have removed the incest stuff—he did not really mean to do that, either. So let us just remember that Mr Goff, as the Minister who wanted to decriminalise some sexual activity between 12-year-olds, was very happy to do a flip-flop—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That’s not true, and the member knows it.

I am happy to table the papers that show that the Minister was proposing to do that. He does not like hearing about it.

When that man was Minister of Justice, William Duane Bell killed three people at the Panmure RSA. After quite some period, when Mr Goff and other Ministers tried to keep the information under control, a report from the probation service came out that said the service missed several opportunities to recall William Duane Bell from parole. The first of those opportunities was when the probation officer gave William Duane Bell his instructions and the conditions of his parole. Bell screwed up those instructions and threw them in the rubbish bin, but the parole officer allowed him to carry on. The second of those occasions was when William Duane Bell failed to turn up for his appointments with his parole officer. The parole officer failed in that situation. In another circumstance, the parole officer failed to make the required visits to William Duane Bell’s home address.

This is where the parallels with the tragic case of Mr Kuchenbecker become so clear. In the William Duane Bell case, New Zealand parole officers failed to do the basic work that we expect of the probation service, and that was to make the home visits to check that he was there. In the case of Graeme Burton, the parole officers also failed to make those checks. When the police said to the Parole Board that he was not at his residence and they could not locate him, the probation service said: “If there’s food in the fridge, don’t worry.”, so no efforts were made by the probation service.

This is at the heart of the issue of ministerial accountability. We have a department that, time and time again, has failed to carry out the very basics of public safety. Under Minister Gosche, the Department of Corrections was constantly explaining why its officers had not followed basic parole provisions. Under Minister Swain, the department was constantly explaining why the probation service had not been following parole conditions appropriately. And now, under Minister O’Connor, we are getting another never-ending series of reasons why the probation service is not following its own procedures.

The probation service plays an important role in public safety. When these people are let out on parole, most New Zealanders know that a huge proportion of them will reoffend. Part of trying to prevent that reoffending is to have good monitoring and support from the probation service. But time and time again that service has been found wanting. Report after report on Ministers’ desks has said that this department has failed in its very basic responsibilities of public safety. So what have Ministers done? It appears Ministers have done nothing. Since the tragic situation of William Duane Bell, nothing has changed in the Department of Corrections.

The fact that nothing has changed is even indicated by the Government’s response to the reports of the various parole handlings. I have here a New Zealand Herald article of 18 December, which was written after the Government received a report on William Duane Bell’s parole conditions. Do members want to know what the headline of that article states? It states: “Government satisfied with parole”. The parallels are frightening. Even with William Duane Bell, the Government was saying it was satisfied with parole. In the subsequent 4 years this Government has done nothing to improve the public safety of New Zealanders through the New Zealand probation service.

What a month we have had. What a month of U-turns, fast and fancy footwork, some loose lips and contradictions, and large doses of blatherskite. That was from the co-leadership of the National Party.

People are now starting to call John Key “Jandal John”, “Mr Flip-Flop”, and he will soon graduate to “Mr Slip-Slop” as well. Just take a look at what has happened over the last few weeks. He has done a U-turn on market rentals for State houses; he has done a flip-flop on Iraq; he has had a contradiction on the air strike force; he has done a U-turn on the foreshore and seabed; he has had a contradiction on the Employment Relations Act; he has had a flip-flop on climate change; he has done a U-turn on nukes; he has had a contradiction on civil unions. And that happened in a mere few weeks since he became the leader of the National Party. What we have had is policy on the hoof. So much for democracy in the National Party caucus. Its members do not get much say over what the leader is going to announce as policy at any time. The policy is what the leader says. It seems to me that the party is rapidly becoming a pinker shade of blue.

It has been an extraordinary month. Just imagine how National Party backbenchers are feeling at this moment. As I look across at them—when they are there—I can see that they feel they have no role, no responsibilities, and no decision making. They are supposed to represent the new faces of the National Party. Well, I have to tell members that they are increasingly looking like the collective grumpy face of the National Party. The smiley face has been replaced by Mr Grumpy.

We have people like my old friend Mark Blumsky who was the previous mayor of this great city. He has been written out of any effective role in the National Party. He expected promotion with the new leadership and so he should have. He was the Mayor of Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand. He had dealt with complex issues. He has the smarts and he could sell shoes to Imelda Marcos. What happened to Mr Blumsky? He has been written out of the script. He is bored. He is brassed off. He is out of this Parliament and I say: “Go well, Mark.”

Then there is Chester Borrows, a thoroughly nice bloke, and I know that because we come from the same stock. He is a former police officer, and highly regarded. But what happened to him this week? He was set up by a very jealous colleague Mr Power. Mr Power was the spokesperson on police but he got the bump by the new leader. Chester Borrows was put in place because John Key wanted to make good with the police after Mr Power had done so much damage to the police service with the comments that he was making.

John Key dumped Mr Power, put in place Chester Borrows, and what happened this week? He was given a bum steer by Mr Power. He handed him information that Mr Power got from a parliamentary question but he did not give him all the information. What happened? Mr Borrows put out a press statement about speeding tickets around schools and he got it wrong. He got it wrong because the tickets related to the Speed Kills Kids programme; that is what it was about; he said it was revenue gathering. The backlash has been severe from the police officers and from the parents. They say they like the policy. He was set up, and he was set up by a very jealous front-bench member.

It is not a happy caucus that we have across the way there. In fact, its members are full of jealousy, they are full of anger, and they are full of frustration. Very large amounts of Polyfilla are being used to cover the cracks and that is evident to any observer. Brian Connell, who sits on the outside of the National Party—he is not allowed in the door—is on the way out. John Hayes, who sits at the back of the House, watches his former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade colleague get the promotion while he gets to make cameo speeches on unimportant bills. Dr Paul Hutchison, who is a man of talent and integrity, had the health portfolio taken off him and given to Tony Ryall who only ever plays gutter politics.

John Key is telling New Zealanders that it is time for a change. I ask: a change to what? There is no policy. There is no principle. This is no time for a change.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the speech of the Hon Annette King, but throughout her speech Mr Auchinvole was making interjections and he is not seated in his correct seat for interjections in the Chamber. He might like to just trot back to the back of the Chamber if he wants to keep parroting away during the general debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need any help. I am aware of the Speaker’s ruling on the issue, but I have to say that Mr Auchinvole is taking part in this debate, and therefore I have allowed the issue to go on.

William Duane Bell killed two New Zealanders in the Auckland RSA, and New Zealanders understand that. Another killer killed the New Zealander Liam Ashley, a young man, in the back of a van, and Kiwis understand that. Graeme Burton, another killer, murdered Karl Kuchenbecker in the bush not some months ago, and Kiwis understand that. What they cannot understand is why this Government is putting up speaker after speaker in this House today to talk about everything else but those murders that have occurred in this country because of the Department of Corrections making error upon error, because of the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board making error upon error, and the lives of those New Zealanders being lost because of all the mistakes in those Government departments.

It is not that Bill English said that the Government, the Prime Minister, Dr Cullen, and Damien O’Connor were not taking those seriously. Mr English knew they were taking the murders seriously. What he said was that they were taking the murders seriously for all the wrong reasons. The Government should be protecting Kiwis. That is what the Department of Corrections should be doing—protecting everyday Kiwis like Liam Ashley, Karl Kuchenbecker, and those at the RSA. It should be protecting those everyday Kiwis from murderers like William Duane Bell, Graeme Burton, and that murderer who killed the young Liam Ashley.

The Government should be protecting Kiwis from murderers, but this Government is not. It is protecting its own Ministers. It is protecting Damien O’Connor. It is protecting its own reputation. It does not care about those being murdered, but about its own reputation in the public arena. We heard today that the Parole Board heard five times that Graeme Burton was a deadly killer and dangerous. Yet the board let him out on the streets. We heard today that the armed offenders squad was even alerted to Graeme Burton being out on the streets. When the squad visited his home this Government’s probation officer said: “Well, you may not find Graeme Burton at home, but we know he’s OK. Just check the fridge.” They checked the fridge and found food in it. So because this killer was not home but there was food in the fridge they figured he was safe and Kiwis were safe.

I am wondering whether the probation officers, rather than seeing whether convicted killers are safely in their homes out amongst the New Zealand public, just check the fridge or do they want the killers to front up to them as they should to the probation service—or do they just check the letterbox and, if the mail has been collected, then the killer is home and everyone is safe? Do probation officers just ring up, and, if the phone is engaged, do they assume that he must be home and that New Zealanders will be safe? What is the probation service relying on? We discovered that Damien O’Connor has a department that is running around giving the armed offenders squad advice like that.

The newspaper today states that the Prime Minister described Damien O’Connor, the Minister of Corrections, as being humane and compassionate because he keeps saying that he will make sure that it will not happen again. When William Duane Bell killed at the RSA, Mr O’Connor said that he would make sure it would not happen again.

Tēna koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister’s decision to review the sale of Landcorp land is very welcome but significantly overdue for two key reasons, and I would like to address both of them today.

The first is that Landcorp’s record of land use is, frankly, disgraceful. It is contributing to the destruction of indigenous forests and to the ongoing unsustainable land use that is causing environmental havoc in our own country. Just as an example, earlier this week it was revealed that Landcorp is currently facing prosecution under the Resource Management Act for clearing more than 100 hectares of native vegetation without having a resource consent. Landcorp was wanting to develop the Hakuraki Farm in the Maroroa Valley by clearing it of native grasses and mānuka. In doing so, Landcorp went ahead without bothering to get the resource consents it needed for the clearing from the local councils. Although the company secretary has admitted that it was a big mistake—and good on him for doing that—frankly, in our view, the full force of the law must be brought down on Landcorp.

All over this country the community is going to enormous efforts to protect indigenous forests and encourage its growth. Farmers, who often get a bad rap, are replanting wetlands and are allowing areas of scrubland to grow precisely so that they can encourage indigenous forests on their own land. Mānuka and native grasses are the beginning stages of the indigenous forest regeneration and, as precious ecosystems, they provide a nursery for a number of indigenous species. They need protection and not further destruction. The Resource Management Act operates to prevent landowners from such wholesale destruction on their private land and it is regularly enforced against ordinary landowners. Landcorp is no different and it should be made a very serious example of.

The second reason is that not only is Landcorp terrible when it comes to these issues but also it has an awful record of dealing with Māori land. So this review is especially good news for those iwi who are fighting to retain their interests in Landcorp land, such as those in Hauraki and those on the Rangiputa Station. I am particularly pleased about the Rangiputa Station land, having discussed that claim in this forum just a few weeks ago. But, although the process is being reviewed for current and future Landcorp holdings, the Government must take responsibility and find a way to remedy the failure of Landcorp to protect Māori land in the past—and I am not talking about 10, 20, or 50 years ago; I am talking about just 5 or 6 years ago.

I refer here to the place known as the Blue Bay Motor Camp, or Ōpoutama by its original and rightful Māori owners. It was a small motor camp on the shores of the Māhia Peninsula. Landcorp owned this land and was leasing it out to a private firm. It then sold that land in 2000 to Fern Holdings. Landcorp made no effort whatsoever to speak with, find, or consult with the Māori owners of that land—those who had a Waitangi Tribunal claim on that land, those who had made sure that there was a section 27B memorial on that land to protect their interests. The hapū wrote to the then Minister, Paul Swain, to ask what was going on and why that land was being sold without the hapū even being told about it. His response was that consultation was necessary for Crown-owned land only, and that Blue Bay, or Ōpoutama, was not owned by the Crown but by its own State-owned enterprise, Landcorp, and therefore there was no duty to consult.

As a result of this unconscionable neglect by the Government for this piece of land, the Blue Bay camping ground was sold to a private developer, who has turned it into about 40 excessively priced condos for the wealthy. Some of the people who used this camping ground had been going there for over 30 years, every year, with their family. Third-generation people were using it for their own kids, as well as Māori being involved with that land and being involved with that same community. The hapū and the community together fought that sale every step of the way. As a last-ditch attempt to try to retain that land, the hapū established an occupation on the foreshore just in front of that land during the whole of the last election campaign in 2005. But at that time if there was one thing the Government was not doing, it was listening to Māori.

The struggle to retain that land as a community resource was so significant that it was even captured on film. I would strongly encourage all members and members of the public to see the film The Last Resort in order to understand this issue. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We operate under legislation called the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Somebody has laid a cord across here—I do not know for what reason—and has put a carpet on top of it. The carpet here is actually presenting quite a hazard to members, who could very easily trip on it and injure themselves. I ask that some remediation is made of this particular thing so that members are not put in danger.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Donnelly. I will have the Serjeant-at-Arms look at that obstacle, which may be an impediment to members and may cause an accident.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I understand that the leader of the National Party and his sidekicks have been roaming around the country trying to find out information on Māori. They did not have to roam around and try to pep it up and find out; I have the facts and I can tell them about those. At the moment we have the lowest Māori unemployment rate on record. It has dropped by 68 percent since December 1999. More Māori are working, fewer are unemployed, and fewer are outside the labour force. The number of Māori in employment increased by 22,000 between December 2005 and December 2006. Again, there are more Māori in real jobs. Certainly, as this great gentleman in the House is shifting the mat and moving it around, that is exactly what the National Party is trying to do in terms of the great things that are happening with Māori.

Let us have some of the facts. Earnings growth for Māori was 11.5 percent. In 2005 nearly 29,000 Māori participated in industry training. Irrespective of what the floor covering looks like, Māori are doing a whole lot better. More facts: Māori are participating and achieving in education and training, and more are qualified. This morning I released information on Māori succeeding in tertiary education. We now have 275 Māori students doing doctoral studies. If we look back 7 to 8 years, we see we barely managed a half-dozen to 10 such students. Last week I was privileged enough to be at the presentation of nearly 61 PhDs. That is the transition that is happening in Māoridom. We are growing up and we are participating in a lot better fashion.

This morning the Māori Affairs Committee—with pushing and prodding from members from the other side of the House—heard a delivery from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Māori Affairs that cited all of these great achievements. And Tau did not show up—no show Tau.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is experienced and he knows that he cannot use just the member’s first name. He must use the full name of the member or his title.

A person to whom I gave a lot of advice in the past, when he was the Minister of Māori Affairs, did not show up. As my colleague Hone Harawira, who worked for me for a few years, told the select committee, Māori are sick of the focus on deficits. I agree with him—and I know about Hone and deficits.

There are more facts around, but I want to get back to the charade that was performed today in this House. What I saw yesterday was one of the most gutless, ridiculous things, with people chortling and laughing all through the discussion of the sad events that involved Graeme Burton and company. To hear the denial today was outrageous. What did Key say? He said: “I mean fundamentally Don and I share the same view …”., and that all he wanted to do was change the tone of things. That is right. There were U-turns and flip-flops on Iraq, employment, and housing. It goes on and on. The issue about Ōrewa was quite pointed. The statements on the underclass were quite pointed. Discussion of the removal of the Māori seats was more than pointed. This Government has certainly got on with it. On 1 April we will extend. We have Working for Families, paid parental leave being extended to 14 weeks, rates rebates for senior citizens, and changes to help small to medium sized businesses. That is serious stuff.

I am always fascinated by price takers and people who play the futures market. I am not as learned as Dr Cullen, but he has certainly proved his prowess in managing the financial benches of this country. We are seeing one of the best performances in 100 years. I have learnt about people, like John Key, who hedge, play the futures markets, and are principally price takers. They prep up the market and use false assumptions and Chinese walls. They build it up and then take out the profit. That is what happening here. One National leader is making a great statement about tax cuts, and the other is saying nothing.

Paula Bennett just accelerated it. What one learns if one has been in this game long enough is that one always has to be careful of people who play the futures markets with dreams and make-believe quanta of money. Dreams are what Mr Key’s financial and tax policies are starting to become. What did Paula Bennett do today? She increased it by $1 billion. Somebody else increased it by $1.5 billion. What is the impact of that? It would be about losing hospitals, good health services, and good education forums—all of those great things this Government is doing.

What does the public want from the Department of Corrections? The public wants efficiently and ethically run prisons that provide security for the public from those who are locked up. The public expects safety for those who are imprisoned and whose normal rights have been removed. The public wants to know that those in prison will be engaged in activities that will result in a level of reform by the time they are paroled and released. Above all, the public wants to know that a quality of supervision will be provided through the whole period.

The only way the public can get that is through having a responsive and responsible Minister of Corrections. How frequently are these straightforward requirements being met? We do not know and we cannot tell, because we have a Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections who has zero credibility attached to his public utterances. We also have a present Minister of Corrections who has become so pliant in the hands of his chief executive that it seems he has become putty-minded, to the extent of brooking no criticism of the service beyond saying that there may have been mistakes, or, similarly, denying any acknowledgment of guilt over events that led to the scandalous and totally avoidable loss of life connected with a convicted killer, Graeme Burton.

Has it occurred to the present Minister that he is becoming complicit in the chronic failure of that which he has responsibility for? Has it occurred to the present Minister that his obdurate refusal to acknowledge fault is starting to implicate his Cabinet colleagues in the same level of complicity? Is the Minister aware that he is actually supposed to be the public representative in this calamitous issue?

There are two aspects of this dreadful episode in the department’s history that indicate that the Minister is complicit in denial. The first is the claim by the chief executive, which was crowed from the rooftops: “there’s no blood on my hands.” and which was echoed, by implication, by the present Minister. The second is the assertion yesterday that it was Burton who pulled the trigger. That was an assertion by Dr Cullen in an attempt to deflect criticism of the Government.

Last night I asked a person with considerable military experience what action he would take with any commander who used the expression “There is no blood on my hands.” in connection with a disaster involving loss of life under his authority. We agreed that someone in a command position making such a remark should in itself be sufficient cause for an independent inquiry. In the case of the Department of Corrections, there should be an inquiry through a select committee. Has that happened? Oh no! Weasel words—wimpish, woofty weasel words—have been used instead to say that although technically and legally it was a well-managed situation, it had a regrettable and tragic result. I feel myself getting very angry inside even thinking about this, so I will move on to the next point.

We were told yesterday by the present Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cullen, that it was Mr Burton who pulled the trigger. It was no one else; Mr Burton did it. It is as if everyone else is exonerated. The New Zealand public will not buy it. It is a bit like saying that if a lion is released from a zoo, it is the lion’s fault for biting and killing someone, and not the fault of the keepers who let it out of captivity. I guess, in the parlance of Labour Government - speak—that endless lexicon of louche statements designed to deflect criticism—even there it would earn only four out of 10. So it was a disappointment to hear it come from Dr Cullen.

It is also, though, a recognition that the present ministerial denial will only make bad things worse. I have had sufficient corporate experience to know that denial leads to no change, and no change leads to repetition. The question I am asked as I tour the West Coast - Tasman electorate is how many people have to die before someone fixes this. What needs to be done? The public is little interested in the niceties of procedure; they want action. There are three things that have to be done. The Minister has to face it, acknowledge that it is a mess, and stop using the glib and redundant defence of “There is always room for improvement.” The Government has to factor in a select committee inquiry to restore some ethical confidence in the service. Finally, the present Minister needs to fade out of the picture so that others can pick up the responsibility and develop an improving situation. Face it, factor it, and fade out. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.