General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Is it not incredible that we can have the unprecedented step of the High Court striking down a health contract of almost half a billion dollars and this Government says no one is accountable? It says no one is accountable.

We have seen the remarkable performance of the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, who started his answer today by saying he did not want politicians involved in contracts. Then when we have this very case where a health board politician is involved in a contract, he is prepared to defend that and he is prepared to defend the appalling performance of his hand-picked district health board flunkeys in Auckland who are part of this appalling situation. In their eagerness to do the deal they have broken their own rules, and the Minister stands up in this House and his attitude is that the district health boards are right and the judge is wrong.

In respect of the performance of the hand-picked district health board chairman and deputy chairman in Auckland, a judge said very clearly that they broke all the rules when it came to dealing with the conflict of interest of Dr Bierre in this laboratory contract. They are the people who approved a half-billion-dollar contract to a man who was a member of the board that resolved to let out the contracts, a man who the High Court said was intimately involved in setting the rules for the contract, and a man who only weeks before the tender documents went out—when there were discussions about the tender—was personally invited to a meeting with these hand-picked Government appointees to advise them on how this whole process should be run.

Those people have missed the opportunity, time and time again, to deal with the conflict of interest of Dr Bierre, so much so that the High Court has made it clear that the Auckland district health boards should have dismissed any deal involving Dr Bierre—that is what the High Court said. The High Court said there is no principled way that a contract or an offer should have been accepted from a deal that involved a member of the board who had intimate involvement in setting up the terms of putting this deal out to contract, who was involved with the discussions of putting this deal out to contract, and who was briefing health bosses only weeks before the contract documents went out. There was no way that that sort of person should have been allowed to participate in a health contract, but this Government says there is. This Government says that, because no one is being held accountable.

Over the next few weeks in question time in this House we will go through each of the points where the High Court has pointed the finger at Wayne Brown, Ross Keenan, and the rest of the Government’s hand-appointed flunkeys in Auckland who are participants in this appalling decision. The High Court has made it absolutely clear that in no way should a contract have been given to a district health board member who was so heavily involved in setting the terms and conditions of this contract. Even the High Court has noticed that Dr Bierre had intimate experience with the key decision makers of the regional district health boards. He knew what their thinking was, he knew what they wanted, and he had been intimately involved in the development of the district health boards’ plans. I cannot envisage that such a deal would be accepted in the commercial world. Yet, with public money, our representatives, the people who are supposed to represent the taxpayers on this district health board, have been involved in a deal that the High Court has said is unlawful.

I urge members to read the decision. The judge said that Wayne Brown should have checked with Dr Bierre that he had abandoned his attempts, that Wayne Brown should have been aware of these conflicts and was advised to address them—but there was no action on that front—and that the district health boards should have dismissed any bid involving Dr Bierre. But they simply did not do that. That is appalling. That is simply appalling.

I am sorry to observe that the member who has just resumed his seat, Tony Ryall, has only one line when anything goes wrong. It is to find a scapegoat—never a solution, never a new idea, just a scapegoat. This member makes his living by demanding that others be sacked. Whatever the problem, that is his one line. Members should contrast his actions with those of his predecessor and colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. They should go to paragraph 91 of the judgment where Justice Asher describes the letter Dr Hutchison received from Dr Bierre that asked for a letter of support, and see how, in response, Dr Hutchison alerted Mr Brown, for the first time, to the fact that Dr Bierre was commercially active. He said that Mr Brown did nothing, which tells me that he has not read the court judgment.

First and foremost, my attention, and the attention of the three Auckland district health boards, must be on ensuring that a contract is in place to deliver reliable community laboratory services to the people of Auckland from 1 July 2007. My confidence in the three Auckland district health boards hinges on their ability to secure such a service.

I have, of course, spoken to many people in the 25 or 26 hours since the decision came out. I am happy to advise that right now there is a strong and cogent commitment from three district health boards and from others to ensuring that the 1 July services will continue. There is no contract as we speak, so no assurance can be given. But I assure the House and the people of Auckland that I am committed to getting the services running beyond 1 July—as is, as far as I am aware, everyone who is working with or for the Auckland district health boards. That is our first job. That is where the focus must be. All other matters are less important—all of them. This matter, the reliable delivery of community laboratory services for the people of Auckland from 1 July, comes first. There are plenty of politics in this. I will leave those politics to one side. My colleagues may pick them up later in this debate. But I will say that that is where my focus lies.

The judgment is instructive. It is the first of its type under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2000, which is now 6 or 7 years old. Although the plaintiff failed on a number of counts, the plaintiff won on two clear counts—one of consultation and the other of conflict of interest.

On the issue of consultation, there are lessons to be learnt. Over time these lessons will need to be assimilated and, if appropriate, tested or perhaps codified. These are matters for the future because they are matters that require reflection. On the issue of the conflict of interest, the judge found, in paragraph 158, that the actions taken by the three Auckland district health boards to address Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest were “entirely inadequate”. Those are strong words. That is a clear finding. The judge has considered the conflict of interest issue at length. He said that all of those involved in the three district health boards and on the evaluation panel acted in good faith, and he found no bias. He detailed the measures that the three district health boards took in order to avoid the conflict of interest, including the legal advice they received, and he said they were OK. However, the judge, having listened to the evidence, found that the conflict of interest did exist, and he found so, clearly.

The judge went on to describe, as I just have, the role of many people in this saga, including that of Dr Paul Hutchison. What we now know is that after receiving Dr Hutchison’s letter, Mr Brown went to Dr Bierre and demanded to know whether a conflict of interest existed. In response, Dr Bierre said that his commercial interests had been mothballed. It was not clear until later that this mothballing was temporary, that he took them out of mothballs, and that at that point he left the Auckland District Health Board. By the time he resigned, however, the judge found that the conflict of interest was already material.

Paragraphs 197 and 198 of the judgment remind me of an earlier time and an earlier gentleman who used the words “first mover advantage”, and we know what happened there. Let me quote paragraph 197, where Dr Bierre describes himself to his business colleagues as being in a position to provide “excellent lines of communication by information; and being a major influence in the restructuring model for pathology services provision.” It is no particular surprise that the judge therefore found a conflict of interest, now that all of this has come out.

It has always struck me as deeply ironic that our Prime Minister should choose as the Minister to superintend the health services for 4 million New Zealanders a person who, in his former life, was a vet. Over the next few weeks we will see that that Minister will have some very difficult answers to provide, because he now has a very serious problem. From 1 July the people who live in my electorate, and over a million other New Zealanders, will have no certainty available to them as to the provision of diagnostic laboratory services, and they are looking to the Minister to give them some assurance on that. This is not a minor issue. Justice Asher, in his judgment yesterday, repeated the assertion of the chief executive of the Harbour Primary Health Organisation that community-referred diagnostic testing is at the very heart of primary medicine. That is true. But we now find ourselves in a situation where, for one-third of the New Zealand public, there is no certainty as from 1 July as to the availability of those services, which lie at the heart of primary medicine.

We find ourselves in that situation because of three reasons, as I read the judgment. First, it is because the prime mover behind Labtests Auckland winning the half-billion-dollar contract was instrumental in both the district health boards’ framing of the terms of that contract and in shaping the successful bid, and in doing so had a huge conflict of interest, as identified by Justice Asher. The district health boards, according to the learned judge, failed in their responsibility, on numerous occasions, to protect themselves against that conflict of interest. That is the first reason.

Second, the High Court has also found that that same Auckland District Health Board member improperly used inside information, which he had acquired in the course of being a member of that board, for the purpose of securing the half-billion-dollar contract. The boards, which had an obligation under law to refuse to accept a bid from such a person, not only received such a bid and processed it but also awarded the contract for half a billion dollars of public money to that insider. For that reason, the contract has been struck down.

Third, the High Court also found that a process set out by law requires health boards to consult with members of the public—whose money they are spending—as they seek to reshape the health services in their region. Health boards have an obligation to consult with those who will be affected. The High Court judge has found in this case that the information provided to members of the public was not honest and accurate. The health boards failed to tell the public in Auckland what they intended to do to the diagnostic laboratory services that were supposed to serve the public. That is serious not just for the boards but for the Minister. The Minister must have known, given the controversy that surrounded the awarding of the contract, that there was an issue around the $20 million or $15 million of savings. He was on notice. He had a duty to inquire; he must have inquired. If he had inquired, he would know that that $15 million worth of savings was not, in fact, from efficiency gains but from cutbacks to services and cost shifting that would take place as a result of the contract. The Minister wished to hide that from the public of Auckland, and the district health boards also intended to hide it from the public of Auckland.

The High Court judge yesterday found that the district health boards were in breach of their statutory obligations in hiding that information. Although the Minister was not in the dock, he, equally, is able to accept that same finding from the judge—that he tried to hide that information from the New Zealand public. The district health boards and the Minister tried to hide the fact that the boards intended to cut staff numbers from 750 to 473. That is in the court documents. The number of pathologists was to be cut from 25 to 17. We were to see 50 percent of the samples be supplied by general practitioners, who had not been consulted about that process, and we were to see the routine turn-round time go from 12 hours, under the old contract, to 48 hours. Aucklanders were not told that about the contract.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. Just a month ago the world’s largest private mining corporation, Rio Tinto, purchased a 60 percent interest in the iron ore prospecting licence to explore seabed mining possibilities offshore from Taranaki. This is a company that won a “Dirty Digger Award” for its continued use of tailings disposal in the Asia-Pacific, pouring millions of tonnes of toxic mine wastes into the ocean and smothering vital organisms on the seabed. At about the same time, Seafield Resources was granted a mining licence covering about 10,000 square kilometres off the South Island’s West Coast, between Karamea and Jackson Head, in water depths of up to 125 metres.

The pigeons are coming home to roost. Since the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Government, by way of the Crown Minerals agency, has auctioned areas of the seabed for mineral and petroleum exploration—or, more accurately, exploitation. The Act has given the Crown a clear mandate, or so it thinks, to sell off all coastal resources, including the sand, to foreign interests. It is a question of justice, law, equality, public access, and property rights all tied up in one.

This House may recall the months in which thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders asserted their mana rangatira over the coast and surrounding areas by marching on Parliament to protect their customary ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The Government reaction to the Ngāti Apa case had been swift and violent, extinguishing Māori ownership through the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Yet here we have another appropriation, secretly and silently being conducted under the ignorant gaze of all New Zealanders, who are unaware that the so-called public access and public resources are being transferred to overseas interests.

The pervasive policy talk of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was that taonga tuku iho of tangata whenua would instead be vested in public ownership. The bitter irony for New Zealand is in our now seeing that what happened to Māori with the foreshore and seabed is now happening to all the peoples of this nation. Remember the principle of access—that the foreshore and seabed should be public domain with open access for all New Zealanders? It is another Tui truism from this Government—yeah, right! The Government is denying due process, exploiting our natural resources, and selling offshore, yet it is packaging the deal as being in the best interests of the nation.

💬 In Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, we are told that societies fail when the most prosaic elements of the Earth’s ecosystem—soil, trees, and water—are mismanaged. The Government may pump up the profit of having a short-term economic gain, but it is being blind to the fact that participating in the world economy brings with it significant costs to those environmental factors identified in the book.

We can think of the Māui’s dolphins and of how they will fare—or not—from the ironsand prospecting off the North Island and the gold prospecting off the South Island. Exploiting the seabed for ironsand, remote surveying, sampling, and analysis can have, and has had, a disastrous impact on the endangered Māui’s dolphin, other marine animals, and marine ecosystems. Yet Crown Minerals continues to grant permits to mining corporations to prospect and potentially mine the seabed off the West Coast of Aotearoa. These small coastal communities are now gearing up to fight, yet again, as they oppose the third application in 2 years to gain prospecting licences from Crown Minerals.

Rather than protect the public interest, the Foreshore and Seabed Act has instead empowered the Government to flog off the seabed for economic gain, weakening the ability of any New Zealander to protect the marine environment. As for section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, wherein the Government is obliged to consult with mana whenua: well, as with Landcorp’s decisions to sell up the Whenuakite and Rangiputa Stations, or with the Ministry of Education’s decision to sell off schools that were, theoretically, land banked, so too is Crown Minerals content just to relax and let the land go—overseas, that is. Kia ora.

Nothing grates more in politics than blatant hypocrisy, whether it is hypocrisy by a politician, a political party, the media, or the public. It could be the politician who makes pronouncements on a moral issue while undertaking, in private, the very sort of moral behaviour he or she rails about in public. It could be the politician who votes against legislation to curry favour with some voters but secretly supports it. It could be members of the media who get too close to politicians and use that closeness to push a party line in their publications. It could be a caller to a talkback show who criticises politicians but never lifts a hand to do anything constructive in his or her own community.

The latest example comes from Tony Ryall, the National Party health spokesperson, and the occasional member Murray McCully. In a full blast of sound and fury, Mr Ryall has spread around as much muck as he can. But I have to tell him that there is some coming back his way. He talked about lackeys—and I will talk a little more about that later. The issue of pathology services in Auckland is too important to be turned into a show pony display by Tony Ryall and Murray McCully. The provision of quality services is at stake here—the delivery of affordable, reliable pathology services for a third of New Zealanders.

I will make no comment about the services that could have been provided by either company. However, I will declare an interest. I opened the new Diagnostic Medlab laboratory in Auckland when I was the Minister of Health. I was impressed by the technology it used and the dedication of its staff. But given what Tony Ryall has said about someone being held accountable, I believe that New Zealanders need to know what the National Party’s involvement in this contract has been from the beginning. I believe that an investigation is needed to see what action any National Party member—whether in Parliament now or before entering Parliament—took in support of Dr Tony Bierre, the principal of Labtests Auckland, the company that won the contract but that has now lost the court case.

First, I found it interesting to learn that Dr Tony Bierre stood on the Citizens and Ratepayers ticket. As everyone knows, that is the National Party. He is a National Party lackey, well known in Auckland as a National Party stooge. He was not some appointed member to the board, as was being claimed today by the National Party; Dr Bierre is a National Party stooge. He stood alongside Dr Jackie Blue, who is now a member of this House, for Citizens and Ratepayers—“Cits and Rats”. She is now a National Party list member of Parliament, and a very, very close friend of Dr Bierre.

It is even more fascinating to read, in paragraph 91 of the judgment, that Dr Bierre solicited help from the then National Party shadow spokesperson on health, Dr Paul Hutchison, to press his company’s case. On 24 June, according to the report, Dr Bierre wrote to Dr Hutchison claiming that his company could provide a valuable alternative to what he described as the current monopoly service. Dr Bierre asked Dr Hutchison to send a letter of support. Dr Hutchison wrote to the chair of the board on 27 June, 3 days later, and attached Dr Bierre’s letter. Dr Hutchison did acknowledge that there was a clear conflict of interest. He then suggested that Dr Bierre’s letter should be considered. Dr Hutchison must explain why, given the conflict of interest, he still wanted the district health board to consider Dr Bierre’s letter.

Dr Jackie Blue also needs to explain what she knew of the conflict of interest, and what action she took to alert the board to the potential risks of her close friend’s plans. I also want to know when Dr Hutchison informed the current health spokesperson of the conflict of interest and of the dangers to the National Party of being tarnished by the association with Dr Bierre. I also think it is important that Dr Jackie Blue, who is now associate health spokesperson and who sat on that board until her election to Parliament, tell this House what action she took to alert the board to Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest. After all, she was a very close friend of Dr Bierre’s. Did she brief Mr Ryall? These are questions that need be answered. We have heard nothing from the National Party about Dr Bierre today—and rightly so, from the perspective of those members.

That was a classic Labour Minister performance—the attempt to cover everything in teflon. Everyone else is to blame for this situation, it is the fault of National members, and nothing can be nailed down to the Labour Government! Well, is that not typical! But there is one thing I would agree with that member on. The provision of quality services is at stake, and it is an extremely important issue. The Minister is correct on that. So it is disappointing that she did not discuss that once in her speech. But what is really disturbing is that when the Minister of Health got up to speak, not 10 minutes ago, he told the House that he could give no assurance that Auckland laboratory services will be up and running on 1 July. That is just great! That is really reassuring for the people of Auckland, because that has been the issue throughout the whole debacle over the past year. Will the Minister assure the public that on 1 July they will have a laboratory service? Now he says that actually he cannot give that assurance. He is responsible. This is a case where “responsible but not to blame” will not be good enough.

But when one thinks about it, if a Government Minister will not take responsibility for the faults of the Department of Corrections in failing to protect the public against a cold-blooded killer like Graeme Burton, and if the Minister of Corrections is not prepared to accept responsibility for putting a 17-year-old boy, Liam Ashley, in the back of a prison van, chained to a cold-blooded killer, is it any surprise that the Minister of Health will not take responsibility for this situation? The reality is that his handprints are all over this decision. He was repeatedly warned that things were wrong in the tender process for this contract. It goes right back to July 2005, when Paul Hutchison warned the Auckland District Health Board that Tony Bierre had a potential serious conflict of interest. The chairman of that board, Wayne Brown, and the chairman of the Waitemata District Health Board, Kay McKelvie, are Labour Party appointees. As Tony Ryall said, they are Labour Party lackeys. They knew what was going on.

The Minister has a direct line to them. He has been warned repeatedly, and now he has to take responsibility for what is to happen. That Minister got up in the House today and had the gall to tell the people of Auckland that no, sorry, he cannot give any assurance that on 1 July there will be a laboratory service. The real question is how bad things have to get in that portfolio, after $4 billion of extra money being spent, total mismanagement, and total failure to take responsibility—I ask how bad it will get before Michael Cullen has to take over the Minister’s portfolio. It cannot be far away. I would say that 1 July could very well be the date on which that happens.

But it is good to note that the hapless Damien O’Connor has already taken responsibility on behalf of the Minister for this debacle. When he was speaking in the House on 26 July last year on behalf of the Minister, he was asked by myself: “Does the Minister accept that he bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring there is no disruption to the provision of community laboratory services for the 1.3 million Aucklanders potentially affected by this change of service provider?”. Damien O’Connor, on behalf of Minister Hodgson, said: “I think Ministers full well understand that the ultimate responsibility for a public health system lies with the Minister. We uphold that responsibility with the utmost integrity and we are sure that this contract will continue to deliver services for the Auckland region.”

So Minister Hodgson is responsible. He has owned up to it, and he has to take the blame for what has happened. As we read in Justice Asher’s judgment, there was repeated warning to the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board that a conflict of interest existed. The chairman of the district health board did absolutely nothing. In the words of Justice Asher: “From the time Mr Brown became aware of Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest, the ADHB was obliged to address it. The action taken by the ARDHBs was entirely inadequate.” It was entirely inadequate. So the Minister has known of the problems about the tender situation all along. He knew there was a conflict. He has said so repeatedly. He said it in question time today. He said it in his own address. It has been flagged repeatedly today, and he is still saying that his confidence in the district health board hinges on its ability to deliver lab services on 1 July. But the real problem is that he will rely on the same people who caused this mess in the first place to now fix the problem. I say to people who live in the Auckland regional district health boards’ catchment area that they can have no confidence that on 1 July there will be a laboratory service for them.

That member should, of course, know that wherever there is smoke, there is not always fire. That is the point we should take in this debate.

💬 Hon Member: Let’s debate the issue.

Let us debate the issue. We will debate the issue. The foray of the “Associate Health Minister” into cigar smoking will be a subject of debate as I go along.

I want to talk about something that is really, really important. That is the new hip, cool National Party’s “40 Below” party. This is something that everybody needs to know, because the National Party is going to get down and dirty and is going to yo bro with a whole pile of young people, led by the person who is now affectionately known throughout Auckland as the “Keyster”. The “Keyster” will be yo bro-ing, jive talkin’, and high-fiving. He will have a funky new handshake, which he will give to all the new homies who will be at this do.

So Labour is having a sweepstake on what the “Keyster” will have on his T-shirt. As the “Keyster” walks into the new groovy party with the National Party members, what will be on his T-shirt? Here are a few slogans we have suggested. What about “Flip Freddy’s Flop”? That lines up with the flip-flops that the National leader is undergoing. What about “Goldenhouse”, to represent that fabulous apartment that the member seems to live in from time to time—although sometimes he lives somewhere else, and cannot quite make it out? What about “RMC”, not OMC—the Remuera Millionaires Club rather than the Otara Millionaires Club. Of course, on the back there could always be P-Money. What about Fur Patrol? This is the sort of thing the coat-check guy does at National Party conferences, just to make sure that people are not bringing in anything untoward. Then, of course, there is all this pretension of “The Holiday-takers”. Remember what members opposite were going to do to 4 weeks’ leave?

But who is going to be there from the National Party? Who are the new hip, funky, cool guys, the groove guys within the National Party? Well, apart from the “Keyster”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have been listening to the member for a while, and I draw his attention to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7, which state that members cannot be referred to by a nickname and must be addressed by their full name or title.

I absolutely agree, Mr Assistant Speaker. I cannot work out why you did not pick me up sooner. Bill English will be there. Remember the calendars he put out? He will be signing calendars, but people will have to be quick if they want one because there are only 14 boxes to go! He will be there, standing in a corner. Then there is Gerry Brownlee. The thing is that young people will be safe, because Gerry Brownlee chucks only old people down the stairs. Simon Power has just had a new haircut. He has shaved off all his hair because he is getting ready to go. Jacqui Dean will be there. She will tell students not to worry about their student loans, because National will get rid of them. They can borrow the money from overseas. So she is OK. Jonathan Coleman will be there with the cigars, but people should be very, very careful and not stand too close to him when he is blowing smoke into their face. If people are there with someone big, I suggest that they take the action that was done to him in the box. Lindsay Tisch is going to be there. I do not know whether he will be in three-quarter pants. He could be in three-quarter pants, but it could be, of course, that they are just Simon Power’s shorts. We never know. Of course, the one who will be advising on how to really party will be Mark Blumsky—“Party, Party Blumsky”. Mark Blumsky will be advising people on how to get home at night and not remember a thing about it.

We can see that this is going to be a fabulous do. It is going to be a ripper. Do members know what it is called? It is called “Grooving with National into the future”. The word “grooving” kind of reminds one of a few decades ago.

💬 Darren Hughes: The Fonz.

The Fonz. It will all be high-fives and “Hey, yo bro!”, and “How you getting down there, man?”. It is all going to be absolutely fantastic. Perhaps the next National speaker will be able to tell us what slogan those members will be wearing on their T-shirts, given the fact that we have now suggested a few lines.

I am pleased to be able to take part in today’s general debate but not overly happy about the subject we find ourselves debating—or were debating—because the member who has just sat down, the Hon Paul Swain, has indicated that Government members have nothing to offer in explanation. We have seen from that member an attempt at a diversion tactic. His efforts are really an indication of a Government that has given up on the hard issues.

Today a letter had been put in requesting an urgent debate straight after question time. The Speaker indicated that the general debate would be the opportunity for members to participate in raising the questions on that matter. We expected there would be at least some kind of interchange, but the effort put in by the Hon Paul Swain is, as I said, a clear indication that the Government has given up. It has given up not just on the issue of Medlab and the provision of laboratory services but on a whole range of things. You see, the public at large have an expectation that I do not believe is inappropriate. People expect Ministers who carry a warrant, who get to ride around in chauffer-driven cars, who have privileges, and who are paid much better than most other people in this country, to give governance. That is their expectation, and that expectation is not unreasonable from a public who elect a Government and want Ministers to take responsibility.

But we do not have governance; we have a shambles. We have Ministers who are very good on mitigation but not very good on management. Yes, they can give explanations of when things go wrong, but the public wants the shambles to stop. They want some assurance. Members of the public are now are saying that they have no confidence in this Government to resolve the hard issues. We have a Government that has fed us a number of slogans. One slogan probably worth considering right now was used in the lead-up to the 1999 election. It is: “Labour will bring a new standard of governance.” Did we know that it would be so much worse? There has been no governance. Then we were told: “In the next 3 years we will be in the top half of the OECD.” A current slogan is: “We will be carbon neutral.” These are aspirations. If the Government cannot handle the day-to-day stuff, then what confidence can we have that the expectations of every New Zealander will be met—expectations that their health needs can be met, that they can be safe in their homes, and that their kids get an opportunity to learn at school?

Today some of my colleagues have mentioned some illustrations of the shambles out there. I too am particularly concerned that we have a Government that has not really taken responsibility in a range of areas. As my colleague Jonathan Coleman mentioned, we have had a total breakdown in the areas of corrections and justice. There was the issue of Liam Ashley being murdered by a killer in the back of a truck. At that point we expected the Minister responsible to put in place provisions to stop anything similar from happening. Yet we have a dialogue of illustrations, including the Graeme Burton case, where the alarm bells were ringing and the Department of Corrections was doing absolutely nothing. It was in denial. The basic Anglo-Saxon response to a crisis is to ignore and deny. That is not why Ministers hold warrants. It is not why they are elected to govern. But in this particular case the Minister has not even stood up to give us an adequate response. He has not said: “Yes, I take responsibility for this.” We had the head of the Parole Board set a standard that could not be matched by a Minister carrying a warrant and being driven around in a chauffer-driven car.

Then there is the issue of education. As I said, New Zealanders expect their kids to be able to have the kind of education that actually gets them through the process of learning. In this last week or two we have had illustration after illustration from schools that are saying: “Hang on, we just don’t trust the NCEA any more. Let’s go out there and look at getting an alternate standard put in place so that at least we can offer students a qualification that has some substance to it.” Is the Minister of Education doing anything to correct that? Again, no. That is just another illustration of the shambles out there.

Then there was the breaking news yesterday about the contract put in place with Diagnostic Medlab being overruled by the court, with the tender process being shown in a whole lot of ways to be inappropriate and suspect. We have a situation now where about a third of New Zealanders who rely on those laboratory services have questions about whether those services can be delivered.

I am rising on behalf of New Zealand First to contribute to this afternoon’s debate, and, after listening to the team that describes itself as the Opposition—and that is another archaic term that needs to be got rid of, because, in our MMP Parliament these days, no party can claim to be “the Opposition”—I say I cannot help but conclude that there is much ado about doing nothing on that side of the House. In fact, methinks members opposite protest too much—far too much, given their track record—when they want to talk about corrections.

Let us just look at the difference between National and New Zealand First. On the National side of the House people are prone to criticise and chastise everybody for failures in the Department of Corrections. I have here a huge wad of documents. This is the Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU), written by Ailsa Duffy QC and dated 16 December 2004. That whole debacle started under whose responsibility—under whose watch? Many of the recommendations made in that document and the failures described in it are actually symptomatic of what we are seeing today. And who was responsible? Oh, there is no comment now! It was the National Government of the day. We do not have to look very far in order to see that. If we turn to page 253, what is the date that we see for the establishment of the infamous emergency response unit? It was 19 May 1999. Who denied successive requests for an inquiry into the activities of that “goon squad”? There is silence. We are talking about the Department of Corrections, we are talking about corruption, and we are talking about incompetence, and the National Party members have suddenly gone deathly silent. Most of the problems that we witness today within the Department of Corrections come from National’s term of governance and the changes it made. I will get on to that.

Whilst the National members protest, strut, and carry on, what is the difference between them and the New Zealand First members? We are simply getting on and doing things. I want to mention a couple of things. For a start, members should look at what is happening with regard to the police. The Minister made an announcement today. Mr Power and the National Party have been screaming out that we will never recruit 1,000 additional police, let alone 1,250. What is the result? The Minister is announcing today that not only do we have 423 more sworn staff members, not including recruits under training, than there were at the equivalent time last year—that is, over and above the establishment in 2006, which equates to a 5.7 percent increase in police staffing numbers—but also we are well on track to achieving our 1,000 extra uniformed, front-line police.

One of the other predictions New Zealand First made was that attrition would fall away, and it has dropped to a resounding 3.9 percent. New Zealand First members said that attrition would fall away as policemen and policewomen saw tangible evidence of new officers coming on stream and the workloads and pressures decreasing, and that once they saw physical evidence that the Government and New Zealand First were serious about resourcing the police, then more police officers would stay. That is precisely what is happening. But that is not what the National Party members predicted—all doom and gloom and scaremongering that we would never achieve that. The reason, I suspect, they have always said that is that they never ever had any intention of resourcing the police in the way that New Zealand First has done.

But it does not stop with the police; members should look at what we have done for seniors. What is the difference for seniors? There is an increase to 66 percent of the net average wage for our seniors. That means that on 1 April this year, married couples will be receiving an increase of $20 a week because of New Zealand First.

💬 Pita Paraone: How much?

They will be receiving $20 a week extra because of New Zealand First. We are not bleating, whining, whingeing, or carping; we are getting on, doing the work, making a difference, and delivering on the things we promised we would deliver. In line behind that, we have increasing the minimum wage to $12 an hour fast on track. In superannuation, single people will get between $12 and $13 a week—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How much?

They will get between $12 and $13 a week more than previously, depending on their living circumstances. Those are real gains, achieved by the only party that is truly committed to our seniors.

Our commitment does not stop there. In August we will see the launch of the SuperGold card for seniors. We promised it; we are delivering it. That will be a huge step forward in terms of improving the lives of our seniors. Not only will Government subsidies and discounts be available on the card but also a significant number of negotiated commercial discounts will be available. New Zealand First is delivering.

It is a pleasure to contribute to the general debate this afternoon. I begin by referring to one of the activities that members engage in when we are not in the Chamber, and that is moving around the electorates within which we work. On Monday afternoon I was driving to Kaipara College to talk to the principal there and visit the school, as one does. As I drove through Kūmeu I was very amused to see—and I thought it needed reporting, because it was a traffic hazard—the jandals, the flip-flops, that were on top of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It was absolutely extraordinary. Of course, the first thing that came to mind is “flip-flop”. I do not want to labour that point particularly, because it stands for itself; I really want to commend the people of Kūmeu and Huapai for the fair they are having—the Jaffa and jandals fair. It is fantastic; there are jandals lined up against all sorts of letterboxes and businesses through that area. It really does bring a smile to one’s face when driving through to see that degree of humour and the promotion of a laid-back kind of lifestyle that the Kūmeu and Huapai people enjoy.

The smile on my face—because I was enjoying that whole message—turned into riotous laughter when I got past the constituency office of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend him for joining in the fun of the fair. I think it is a very good thing, and humour against oneself is also a very admirable thing. But for a public relations company not to spot the lead-in this would give in respect of the “King of Flip-Flops” is beyond belief. I kept my hands on the wheel and remained on the road, but I had to go back and see it a second time when driving back, just to make sure I had not made a mistake. There they were, bigger than anybody else’s! Other people have jandals attached to their businesses that are reasonably discreet, but these were gigantic—these two blue and white flip-flops on top of the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency office. They really were worth remarking on.

There is a more serious thing that I wish to address in the context of this debate—but it is not unrelated. The issue is to do with whether the member—who, with all good humour, may have attached some flip-flops to his roof—is trying to present himself as a credible alternative Prime Minister when there are so many flip-flops in his policies. This also needs to be drawn to the attention of not only the House but also the general public. It does not matter whether it is Agenda on Saturday morning and newly made up housing policy, a sudden recanting on the position of sending troops to Iraq, or another item. This leader cannot and does not have, it seems, any wellspring of philosophical political commitment from which he can draw. He is constantly looking for the right answer for the audience.

When he was asked by a student radio station what his view was on the Springbok Tour in 1981, he could not even bring himself to think up an honest answer. He could not bring himself to simply say he was for it or against it. He said he did not remember. He is the only person in this country I can recall who cannot remember which side of the argument he was on in 1981. The veneer that this leader—this would-be Prime Minister; this never-be Prime Minister—is trying to create is easily seen through by the people of New Zealand. It is easily seen through because the man has not kicked around long enough in political circles. Frequently we are accused of being Labour Party hacks or political hacks. There is something to be said for experience in this House and in politics.

It is a privilege to rise in the House and to close the debate on behalf of the National Party, which all New Zealanders now recognise is the Government-in-waiting. I must say, however, that it is quite hard to get motivated and speak when following what was probably one of the poorest speeches to be delivered in this House in a long time—particularly when the people of Auckland face such a critical issue as the one that landed on them yesterday. Before I turn to that subject, though, I would like to make reference to the speech made by the Hon Paul Swain, and to say how disappointed I was with it. I know I am a humble backbencher who is normally hidden in the back corners of the House, but he might at least have noted that I have had a haircut. All it will take is a bit of product, and on Friday night I will be ready to rumble with the best of them.

The Auckland High Court lab testing decision, and how the Government is handling it, is just one more example of the ineptitude of this Government and another example of Cabinet Ministers performing poorly. This mess has the potential to cost New Zealand taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in compensation and court costs. It is, therefore, of direct relevance to this House. One of the things that taxpayers do is to place their trust in Cabinet Ministers to protect their interests and protect their money. That trust has been clearly misplaced in this House this afternoon. What confidence can the people of Tāmaki, covered by the Auckland District Health Board, now have that there will be diagnostic testing services available to them after 1 July? One-third of New Zealanders now have hanging over them the shadow of that uncertainty.

If any member of this House has reason to take that personally, it is myself. Although I will not enter into debating the merits of either side of the case, I want to say that I, like thousands of Aucklanders, am incredibly grateful for the diagnostic testing, the services of pathologists, and the nurses that take the samples. I am grateful to them for the work they do. They do not deserve, and Aucklanders do not deserve, the uncertainty that now hangs over a very important part of the health provision. This Government has failed in one of its key tests, and the Minister is behaving as though he has no idea what to do next.

The Minister cannot escape responsibility for what has happened. In 2003 this Government made the decision to delegate responsibility for the letting of contracts for diagnostic services to the district health boards. At the very time when Aucklanders need the Minister to show leadership and to show there is a way forward, he is floundering, he is lost, and he does not know what to do. Let me help the Minister. He has to do only one thing: to have the decency to resign. If that resignation is not forthcoming, it will be just one more example of the “no one is responsible” approach that this Government takes to matters that are of vital importance to the lives of everyday New Zealanders.

One has to ask whether Cabinet is undergoing systematic professional training in how to avoid ministerial responsibility. One would have to think so, and it obviously working, because Ministers do that so well. In fact, when the term of this Government is over—and that is only months away—all it will have to show for its years in office is the fact that its members have set a standard for accepting ministerial responsibility that is well below the standard that New Zealanders expect. It is well below the standard that New Zealanders expect from the people elected to represent them in this House.

One has to ask another question: has the Minister of Health simply been following the example of the Minister of Corrections?

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou i te Whare. It is interesting to follow the speaker who preceded me, Allan Peachey. He came from the education area, and I fear for the parents of the students who suffered his orations or presentations. For the few New Zealanders listening and still awake after that—

💬 Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In no way do I think it is appropriate or consistent with the Standing Orders for that member to bring my previous career, the previous school that I worked at, and the pupils who attended it into this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that that is a matter for debate. The honourable member’s time will start again.

If we ever needed evidence of the correctness of what I just said, we witnessed it there. We have just seen a brilliant time in New Zealand in relation to two signal events that advanced the quality of race relations in Aotearoa. Firstly, we saw the results of the fantastic efforts of the Prime Minister, Mr Goff, and a host of other senior Labour politicians in securing recognition from the British Crown for the bravery—

💬 Pita Paraone: And New Zealand First.

And New Zealand First—in particular, my colleagues here. In fact, I must acknowledge that at Rotorua, to celebrate with the Haane Mānahi whānau, was Mr Ron Mark, who has had a distinguished career in the military. But, more important, the kaumātua Tāmati Paraone from Ngāti Hine was there, the surviving old warhorse of the Māori Battalion. For how many years did Te Arawa go cap in hand requesting, almost begging, the National Government to stand up against the prejudices and the very difficult attitudes that persist in England as to how it would reward this fine, brave man and his whānau? It took the qualities of leadership from the Prime Minister, Mr Goff, and a host of other people associated with Labour, and their friends, to do this. Long may they be friends.

At least with these friends—the Māori in the New Zealand First Party—we can predict what they will do. As I said recently, I enjoyed some kōhanga reo fun with Dr Pita Sharples on Television One. We cannot predict what the other Māori in the Māori Party will do. They make it up as they go along. They are hoping they will be able to cuddle up and restore the fortunes they are losing because they tried to get a deal with National for the seabed and foreshore. The party was created, supposedly, on the problems to do with the seabed and foreshore. Its proposal was to restore all the seabed and foreshore back to the Crown, and that proposal died at the feet of the very people it has been trying to cuddle—John Key and Gerry. Well, nui te tinana, a lot to cuddle there!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name.

Gerry Brownlee. I will give an appropriate translation. The Māori Party has sought solace in both of those individuals. It is going nowhere. But let me continue. A brilliant announcement was made today. Whenuakite—the land that is now visible. Rangiputa, emerging from a divine source. Two very important blocks of land located on the coastline, of huge iconic importance to both Māori and Pākehā, are not for sale—there is deferment, which is a success for the brilliant lobbying of the Māori members of the Government. This is despite all the parroting and wandering around of our colleagues and whanaunga in the Māori Party, who are wasting their parliamentary salaries and perching themselves in Rangiputa, Hauraki, and Te Tai Tokerau. The issue came back to the Government and caucus, and we now have a very successful outcome. In fact, I cannot wait to go back—hopefully, with some colleagues from New Zealand First and Te Tai Tokerau—and tell the hapū and our old warhorse up there, Sir Graham Latimer, the great leader that he is, that the land they feared might be lost will not be lost. It now lies available for utilisation in the Treaty of Waitangi estate.

To show that we are very diverse in our view and approach, the land also lies available to settle the problems relating to garden variety Kiwis wanting to celebrate that great New Zealand tradition of the summer holiday, recreation, and boating. Of course, should the opportunity ever present itself for members on the other side of the House to control the process of what State-owned enterprises are to do with their assets, there will be no coastline left; there will be nothing. The only accessible places left available would be those with the hapū and the whānau, and they are fast diminishing. However, this one will be restored back to a place of pride in the public estate—a brilliant decision today.

So there are two things that show there has been great progress on the broad front of Treaty relations and race relations. No. 1 is the decision to defer the sale of these two sites, thereby enabling us to address the concerns of our garden variety Kiwi voters who fear they cannot go on holiday during the summer because the access to the coast is no longer available. No. 2 is the brilliant leadership shown, and the joy and the pleasure was evident on television. I am not talking now about the interview with Pita Sharples and Shane Jones; I am talking about the very brilliant account that was given for the whānau of Haane Mānahi and Te Arawa iwi.

Of course, Te Arawa do not want to hear much from the Māori Party. Te Arawa made the very hard decision to stand by their mandate, and one of their own people comes to this House every day to undermine the decisions of his own kaumātua. That will come back to haunt them. The election will roll around very soon. One cannot hide behind arcane parliamentary procedure; at some point one must stand on the marae and give an account of why, when one is meant to be the member for Waiariki and of Te Arawa, one spends most of one’s time undermining the efforts of his kaumātua. Haere ra! Kia ora tātou.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.