General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. As many people are wont to do, the wonderful Bill English recently visited the Manawatū region. He was reported in the newspaper as saying that the major issue was leadership. We all know that Mr English is very, very interested in leadership. He wanted to lead the National Party after Mr Brash was so rudely interrupted. He almost made it, but a couple of people, having been across to the Back Bencher, changed their vote at the last minute. They came back and voted for John Key.

I notice that Mr English, in stressing the issue of leadership all the time, has been making it very clear who does all the real work. In North and South Mr English has characterised Mr Key as jumping from cloud to cloud while he is down there in the gully, grinding away. Slowly but carefully, week after week, Mr English has built the image of himself as being experienced, hardworking, and knowing everything, and Mr Key, the front man, as being aspirational. John Key is the lightweight; he is the marketer—he is the kind of Amway man of the National Party. Look, I want to be fair. It is not for us on this side of the House to say what Mr English is up to. It is not for us to say, or to speculate on. However, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that Mr English is watching the rest of us as the shine goes off Mr Key—as that shine starts to disappear. [Interruption] As National members say, they would expect me to say that, would they not?

I went around and had a wee look at what other people are saying. Here is an example from an independent person, by the name of Colin James, who says: “Key plays politics in stance on therapeutics.” He says at the bottom of an article in that august journal the Otago Daily Times: “An Opposition leader with foreign policy experience and a keen sense of foreign policy imperatives would not have passed up the opportunity to have said the right thing on the therapeutics bill, but”—he says in there, and we know that Colin James is a stern man—“he passed up that opportunity and he buckled to Tony Ryall.” He buckled to Tony Ryall, the voice of experience in health. Tony Ryall, a man who has been around for a long time, and who knows a syringe from a stethoscope, is the man who controls the portfolio.

Then we go on to John Armstrong. What does John Armstrong say? The headline states: “Key’s extravagant rhetoric lets Benson-Pope get out from under”. Mr Armstrong goes on to point out that Mr Key simply does not know how to ask a question in Parliament. That is why every time we come down here, I have discovered, National members look so flat. They sit there looking at John Key—and it was fun for a while; he got up and asked a few questions, one after the other—but slowly realising that as he gets up week after week, he cannot even ask a question.

We go to Fran O’Sullivan: “The National Party … is indulging in political point-scoring at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity.” Then we go to the Otago Daily Times and the wonderful speech by Mr Key down at the conference on local government, where he—irritatingly, they say—was non-committal about either his or the National Party’s preference on what to do about Auckland. In fact the article went on to ask: “Does this man have any policy at all?” People are asking whether he has any policy, at all. He has been here for a while.

Colin Espiner has said: “Don’t you learn quickly. You go off to the West Coast. You’ve been used to being on your own; now you’re followed by everybody and you get caught out saying ‘National will win 50 percent of the vote at the next election’.” They call him “Landslide John Key” now, and I bet John Key regrets those words right now, predicting at this time with that kind of arrogance.

The only conclusion we can come to is that the horrible truth is dawning on the National Party. It has made a mistake. The horrible truth is dawning on those members that they should have gone for Bill English. Bill English knows that that is what is happening. That is why he is preparing. That is why he is getting ready. That is why Gerry Brownlee’s mood has picked up, because he is now waiting for a return to sitting in one or two seats over, because he is actually the only National member who can ask questions in Parliament. He is the only National member who can do anything in Parliament. He knows that he was dumped to make way for a duo that is now showing that the veneer is wearing off and, unfortunately for the National Party, there is no wood underneath.

I hope the graduation ceremony speech next year at Massey University will be better than that effort. I am very confident that the Massey University library researchers will be better than those in the Labour Party. I further want to say to Mr Maharey that when he stalks the halls of power as the vice-chancellor of the university, he will be welcome in our office despite his own Government’s attitude to these things.

That comment relates, of course, to the incidents that have unravelled in the House this week and, indeed, in the media relating to the Government’s decision to end or terminate the employment of Madeleine Setchell in the Ministry for the Environment. We have heard a whole lot of excuses from people about why this happened. The Minister himself said he knew nothing about it at all until, apparently, someone in his office picked up a telephone, rang the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and said: “Look, I don’t want to get in the road of your employment policies, but is it true that this person has a connection that we find unfavourable?”. Apparently, that person then went to Mr Benson-Pope and said: “Look, there’s been a rumour around. I’ve just managed to confirm it.” He did not then ask what Mr Benson-Pope thought, or what he should do; he apparently did not say anything. The Minister has told the House that there was no discussion.

Apparently, some time later, Hugh Logan, sitting at his desk, thought: “I wonder why Steve Hurring rang me about that? Perhaps I’d better investigate a bit further. Maybe there’s something they need to tell me.” Well, we do not know whether he rang them, but we do know that there were a series of meetings, we heard today, between the Minister and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment where all sorts of things were discussed. Can members imagine that in the course of those discussions Mr Logan did not say: “By the way, I’m looking into that matter.”, or “What do you think about that particular issue?”, or “Are you happy if I take this particular course of action?”. Apparently, there was no discussion whatsoever. Mr Logan concluded that there was going to be a conflict of interest, and therefore he had to manage Ms Setchell out of this particular position.

Well, they are the facts as presented by the Government. But no one in their right mind believes that that was how it worked. The reality is bound to be much more along these lines: Mr Benson-Pope heard the rumour, Mr Benson-Pope asked for the rumour to be checked out, and Mr Benson-Pope said: “No, that woman has to go.” Mr Logan was instructed one way or the other, by any manner of communication, to achieve just that.

The interesting thing is that there was at least a month between the time the Minister became aware of Ms Setchell’s appointment and the exit of Ms Setchell from that department. So there had to have been lots of discussion and lots of consideration. The thing that really makes us a little bit suspicious about what went on is that even after her employers had been through this exercise, and even after they had gone through the charade of offering Madeleine Setchell a different position—a junior position—they tried to keep it quiet after they had constructively dismissed her, because she was politically connected, in their view. Let me make it very clear that Madeleine Setchell is entitled to her political views. I do not know what they are. I do not even know what Kevin Taylor’s views are upstairs. They are good servants to us—or he is—and she has been a good servant to the State, and they deserve to be treated much better—

💬 Rodney Hide: That’s a Freudian slip from you!

That may well have been a Freudian slip, I am not sure, but I am fortunate, because I do not know what a Freudian slip actually means, and clearly yesterday Mr Benson-Pope did not know, either.

One would think, after going through this sort of exercise, that this department might be a little cautious. But, no, members should remember that the department was in this process from 28 May. On 30 June the department placed an A4-sized ad in the Dominion Post. The ad states: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda?”.

My colleague Steve Maharey mentioned the lift in the mood of Gerry Brownlee, and it was particularly obvious during that contribution. Mr Brownlee can see his seat becoming vacant in the very near future. But I have to say that as well as his strengthening his contribution in the House, I was very impressed with his moonlighting as a Radio New Zealand National interviewer this morning and the way he eased himself into Sean “Just Answer the Question” Plunket’s seat during the interview with Annette King. He is also looking forward to easing himself into the vacant seat of the current deputy leader of the National Party.

The word is out, not just around this building but around the whole country, that John Key has lost the edge that he had. I did not think it would happen so fast, but John Key has made a point of parading himself up and down the country and proving beyond doubt that he has no substance. If people wondered whether it was true, they do not have to be in doubt any longer, because the deputy, Bill English, confirmed it for them. In the North and South magazine he is reported as saying that he is the grinder, that he is the one who does all the work, and that John Key has no substance—he just hops from cloud to cloud. What a fantastic thing to say about one’s own leader! I do not know whether he thought he was speaking off the record. Did he not know that there was a tape-recorder on the table, turned on?

💬 Simon Power: Like John Tamihere!

Exactly, we have heard of that situation before. Maybe Bill English fell for the same old trick. Whatever happened, it has certainly confirmed any doubt that people had in their minds: there is no substance at all to John Key.

John Key recently went overseas, and they do say that when the cat is away the mice will play. John Key was asked who was going to look after the place while he was away. He said: “The wife, the kids, and my cat, Moonbeam.” It must have been a bit offensive to his deputy, who was going to be Acting Leader of the Opposition, that he did not even rate ahead of the cat. He did not even make it to the list ahead of Moonbeam, the cat. That is extraordinary. So poor old deputy leader Bill—

💬 Simon Power: That joke is 6 weeks old.

That was not a joke; it was what Mr Power’s leader said about his deputy.

There was plenty of action from the deputy leader while the leader was away. One of the things I found most extraordinary—and Grey Power members from all around the country have been contacting me about this—was that Bill English is once again floating the idea that our age of entitlement for superannuation will have to go up, or the level of superannuation will have to go down. After all our efforts to restore the level of superannuation to 65 percent for a married couple, linked with the average wage, we can see it going down again because of Bill English’s commitments.

My colleague Steve Maharey quoted the concern of both Colin James and the Otago Daily Times about John Key and Bill English. Fran O’Sullivan, who has not been a strong supporter of our Government in articles from her that I have read, is again raising concerns about the way in which the National Party leadership is prepared to play politics at the expense of our country. We saw it in relation to the trans-Tasman therapeutic products issue. We know that considerable concern was raised by National backbench members who understand our concern about the lack of regulatory protection for imported goods. Fran O’Sullivan said that the National Party, led by a former currency trader, was indulging in political point-scoring at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity. Sooner or later there has to be some understanding that in this Parliament we have a larger responsibility to the whole country, and, in the words of Fran O’Sullivan, we should not try to score political points at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity.

There is always plenty of room for robust debate and for disagreement, but, when it comes to open and honest dealings, people’s commitments should be listened to, people’s understanding should be taken at their word, and the benefit of the country should not be put aside for cheap political point-scoring. In my view, our nation deserves and expects more from major political parties.

Before my colleague Gerry Brownlee was interrupted by the contribution from the Hon Ruth Dyson, he was bringing to the attention of the House the advertisement from the Ministry for the Environment about the opportunity to work at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda.

However, what was more interesting in that advertisement in the Dominion Post of 30 June was this paragraph: “To staff these work programmes, the Ministry for the Environment has established and will soon be advertising, some great opportunities to work in our organisation where we focus on the big questions dominating the headlines and the Government’s agenda.” It does not state: “Come and work for the Ministry for the Environment in a safe workplace where you will, regardless of your political affiliations, progress up the ladder.” It is all about selling the Government’s political agenda—as advertised in the Dominion Post of 30 June.

Members of this House know when a Government is in its dying days, because the Public Service is no longer a safe place to work for people who have any sort of connection with those in the political environment. We know, and we have heard, that the press secretaries in the Beehive and in ministerial offices are not happy at all about the way in which this matter has been handled. We know that professional State sector public servants in the Beehive, who are apolitical, are finding the current situation far from satisfactory. The State sector is bordering on being deeply politicised, and that has to stop. In the meantime, and alongside this new trend, the election laws in New Zealand, through the Electoral Finance Bill that was tabled yesterday, are being rorted to suit the incumbent Government.

That member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, gets on her feet in this House and talks about bipartisan discussions on things like the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and gets a conciliatory nod from her colleagues on the Government benches. Let me say this right now. Partisan electoral reform sets an extremely bad precedent in this House; there has always been a bit of an understanding between the senior members of both parties. One day—a day not too far from now—members on that side of the House will be sitting on the Opposition benches. Legislation that they have passed to screw the scrum in favour of the incumbent, when no other political party is able to advertise or speak directly or indirectly with the public 12 months before, or in the year of, an election, alongside the fact that a Government can continue to use taxpayers’ money to advertise Government policy, is just a rort.

The only thing this particular legislation is covering up—or, in fact, fiscally replacing, for want of a more clumsy phrase—is the way the pledge card was funded in the last election. This is the next step in the series of being able to use taxpayer funding to drive the Government’s political agenda. This is a shameful screwing of an electoral reform scrum, and members on that side of the House should be ashamed of the partisan way that this electoral reform is being proposed. Let me give an assurance that over the next few months the National Party will not take this sitting down.

We know things are going badly for the Government because of the three key signs that we in the National Party look for in order to know the Government is on the way out. The first is that Phil Goff’s smile gets wider and wider and wider. The wider Phil Goff’s smile gets, the closer to extinction this Government and this Prime Minister are coming. The second sign, of course, is that David Cunliffe gets more and more sure of himself. It is difficult to imagine, I know, but he gets more and more sure of himself. He starts lounging back on the third-row bench, with his arms outstretched across two seats. We know that he can see opportunity.

The last dead give-away sign, of course, that this Government’s days are coming to an end is that Clayton Cosgrove’s wardrobe is constantly updated. He knows he is on the way forward, when this Government falters at the end of next year. Those three signs are being carefully watched. [Interruption] Mark Burton can interject, but that Minister will not want to be reading the front page of today’s Independent, which says—essentially—that he is gone. He tries hard, but he is just not up to it. He is gone. The man who is still recovering from not being made Speaker after the last election is now finding his political future printed in front of him on the front page of Wednesday’s Independent.

It is worth reflecting that while we are debating in this House, hard-working, successful Kiwi businesses are going under, and hard-working Kiwis are losing their jobs. Our economy is actually going to tank next year, because on Thursday the Reserve Bank governor will be hiking interest rates, to drive down the New Zealand economy. We see nothing in response, in this House and from this Government, to assist the New Zealand economy. In fact, every decision that has been made has been to make matters worse.

By the way, for the benefit of those who are interested in what is happening in the New Zealand economy, I believe that the best analysis is provided by economist Rodney Dickens from Strategic Risk Analysis Ltd. We can read his material online at www.sra.co.nz.

Here is what has happened, and here is what is going to happen. With the replacement of Don Brash by Alan Bollard, an experiment was undertaken in having a looser approach to monetary policy—a less Presbyterian approach, and a more catholic one, I would guess. The approach was to wait, watch, and worry, rather than to deal with the issues. That had the go-ahead of the Government. In fact, that is why Rod Carr did not get the job of Reserve Bank governor. The approach to monetary policy was loose from 2002 onwards, and we have seen underlying inflation within the New Zealand economy, in the non-tradable sector, tip up to 4.5 percent. Of course, the economy booms. We saw Government members patting themselves on the back because the economy was booming. Actually, anyone can have that by running a loose monetary policy.

The trouble is that the chickens come home to roost, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are actually seeing a Muldoon-like response to that, where the Government wants to pile up intervention on intervention, rather than deal with the underlying problem. It may undermine the independence of the Reserve Bank governor, by intervening and telling him what it can do. The Reserve Bank governor himself was trying to intervene in the market, and according to John Key, who knows about these things, blew $100 million—all to no avail. Of course, what will happen is that interest rates will go up. Let us make it clear that the purpose of that is to drive the New Zealand economy into a recession, which, by the way, runs the risk of throwing this Government out of office, because we are heading into an election in 2008. That is why Michael Cullen is running around, trying to avert the disaster. Well, Michael Cullen can try.

What we need to do is to get Government spending under control. We should not beat up on the productive sector, which creates the wealth. We should deal to the Government, which is destroying it. It is because of the Government’s spending that businesses are going to the wall, not because of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and the Reserve Bank governor. We have—and Treasury has documented this—a 1.7 percent fiscal stimulus heading into an election year, and everyone knows what Labour and Michael Cullen are going to do. They are going to spend up, next year. How do we know that? It is in the Budget. That is what is driving up interest rates now. The markets are not stupid; they know that this crowd will be spending up. Interest rates are going up now in order to counteract that, and businesses are going under. We are running the risk of collapsing the housing market, all because we have a Minister of Finance and a Labour Government that are not prepared to get their own finances in order.

So hard-working New Zealanders, who pay for everything through their taxes, are the ones who are going down. They are the ones who are going under, while the Government just spends their money, and spends it and spends it. Then, Muldoon-like, the Government turns round and blames them. It says to try this or that, which drives up the dollar further, because the expectation is of a spend-up. I tell Dr Cullen to get his house in order. That will get the economy under control.

I will take these few moments in the House today to ask two basic questions. The first is: “What is the National Party?”, and the second is: “Who is John Key?”. We acknowledge that the National Party has had its time in the limelight over the last couple of months. It has seen its poll ratings go up a little bit, it has its chest puffed out, and it has seen the future in a positive frame of mind. But it has a leader who we are not quite sure of. It is not just the Government who is not sure, but each and every New Zealander is not sure.

Who is John Key? When John Key goes to the marae at Waitangi, he is the social worker—the carer of all the poor underprivileged in this country—

💬 Steve Chadwick: The guardian.

—and the guardian; that is right. When he goes to the West Coast he is the champion of the loggers and the miners. He promises to use every bit of Department of Conservation land for economic purposes. Well, like the good people of Waitangi, the good people of the West Coast were not for a moment fooled.

I can offer some sympathy to the Māori Party. Those members saw John Key as the great rangatira who was to come in and bring them the seabed and foreshore—deliver to them on a plate what they have stood for in this House for so long. Well, like the people of Waitangi and like the people on the West Coast, Māori Party members have been conned. They still ask the question: “Who is John Key, and what does he stand for?”.

Just the other day John Key went to a Federated Farmers meeting, where one would think he would be in an area of traditional support for the National Party. He used an analogy that really exposed what he is. He is no farmer; he is a money trader. He said to the Federated Farmers conference, with regard to property rights: “You might own a farm, but that does not mean you can go and build a 40-foot skyscraper or apartments. They always come with conditions.” What a strange, strange, analogy. It shows that John Key does not know who a farmer is.

If John Key continues to go around this country with the smile of a Cheshire cat and the appearance of a chameleon, then no one in this country will know who he is or what he stands for. If he does not know what he stands for, and he does not know what principles he stands on, then ultimately he will end up tripping himself up. And that is exactly what he has done.

I would ask why Bill English would use such an analogy as “John just bounces from one cloud to another”. It is a strange thing perhaps, but I guess John Key went to a meteorological meeting somewhere and said that he was a cloud—because he has been saying to all New Zealanders, regardless of where they are and of what they do, that he is just like them. Well, he is not. He is a very wealth money trader who has come back into this country and who wants to be Prime Minister.

New Zealanders are not fools. New Zealanders can work that one out fairly quickly and that is indeed why his poll ratings are going down the gurgler, as are the poll ratings of the National Party. To use John Key’s own words: “In the end they will all have to judge me on the actions that I take, the policies that I promote, and the people that I have around me.” National members have no policies. They have absolutely no policies.

I would ask: “Who are the people around John Key?”. Well, Bill English is one of his trusted lieutenants—or un-trusted lieutenants; I would be very careful if I was John Key and Bill English was as close as that behind me.

I ask whether one of his lieutenants is Simon Power. Simon Power is John Key’s trusted lieutenant. Simon Power promised this country corrections policy in March of this year. It is now July and we have seen absolutely nothing. But he has tried.

What happened was that Simon Power and a few National Party people held a meeting in Christchurch. Eight people turned up to a meeting that was supposed to announce key National Party corrections policy. What does the policy say? It says National is going to privatise prisons and abolish parole. What a ridiculous position to stand on.

People on the left always think that politics permeates everything and everyone. This is why they have politicised the public service. It is extraordinary that they would do that. If members want proof, there is an advertisement that says: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of the New Zealand political agenda?”. That is an advertisement for the New Zealand public service—a place that has traditionally been politically neutral. What do people on the left want to do? They want to politicise the public service.

Let me say to Mr Benson-Pope that the country has made up its mind about him and does not believe the Minister. The reason why is that the Minister has a reputation for not telling the truth. Invariably the truth has to be extracted. That is what happened over his former teaching predilections concerning tennis balls, and now it is happening all over again. Yesterday, in parliamentary questions, he denied having discussions with his staff member Mr Hurring about Ms Setchell’s employment. We now know that was not a true statement because it was contradicted by his own answers today and, of course, his Freudian slips on radio. He said today in the House that Mr Hurring had had several telephone conversations on 28 May and 29 May—five conversations in total. The Minister was asked directly by Mr Brownlee if he had had discussions with Mr Hurring.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

He did not answer yes or no; all he said was: “I refer you to the report by Mr Iain Rennie.” I have read that report and I presumed the Minister was referring to paragraph 3 or maybe paragraph 7. But there is absolutely nothing in the report at all that says anything about discussions between the Minister and Mr Hurring; it is silent on that particular issue and the Minister knows it, and he did not answer. I say to the Minister: “Did he speak to Mr Hurring or not?”, or are we expected to believe that there was not a single word over 2 days—that with five telephone conversations between Mr Hurring and the department, there was not a single word between Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Hurring?

In truth, the newspapers and, indeed, Mr Benson-Pope, contradict his answers in this House because in the Dominion Post of 24 July Mr Benson-Pope said he did know the calls were being made. I have to ask the Minister how he knew. Did he just divine this out of thin air? The truth is Mr Hurring must have told him, so why did he give that answer in the House, when he simply referred to the State Services report? In the discussions with Mr Logan, which are referred to in the report, are we really expected to believe that all he said—the only thing he said—was: “It’s all your decision.”? What was the context of that particular statement? Was it about, for instance, something like a conservation reserve? We know it was not that; it was about an employment procedure and there must have been other things that were actually said. I suspect that what was really said was something like this: “I am concerned about that employment. I don’t want it to happen,”—and, as some kind of saving rider—“but of course it’s your own decision.”

It is all a bit like the television series House of Cards where a similarly sinister Minister, Francis Urquhart, would always say to a proposition put to him: “Well, you might possibly think that, but I couldn’t possibly say.” Let me say to Mr Benson-Pope that he is not half as slick as the slippery Mr Francis Urquhart. This country has already made up its mind about Mr Benson-Pope. People say he does not tell the truth; they say he should go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that he cannot indicate that a member is misleading the House. There are many other ways of making the point that a member believes something is incorrect. The member will stand and withdraw.

Mr Speaker—

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

I withdraw.

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

That was Wayne Mapp, and in a former lifetime he was the PC eradicator—do members remember? I must say I am rather saddened to see the demise of the PC eradicator. Maybe he had finished all of his work! But I would like to ask somebody—anybody—to name one “PC” that the PC eradicator eradicated. I ask for just one “PC”. I cannot hear of one “PC” so presumably the member’s work was not just finished, he never even started it, and the National Party realised that it was really along the lines of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Maybe it realised that, ultimately, there was never going to be a “Minister of PC Eradication”, and that it had better drop that silly idea while it had the chance.

I want to pick up on an issue raised by my colleague Damien O’Connor concerning what the National Party stands for.

💬 Darren Hughes: It will be short.

It will be a very short speech. I say right from the start, given the debate this week, that it is the role of the Opposition to attack the Government. There is no question about that. I remember that the Labour Party had 9 very long years doing that—indeed, 9 very fruitless years. That is why we always want to be in Government and why the National Party is the Opposition. I can say that National is a much better Opposition than we ever were, and that is why it will be in Opposition much longer than we ever were.

My experience is that an Opposition should attack the Government, but I warn the Opposition not to attack the State Services Commission. I think that is a very, very dangerous and slippery road to go down. My experience of being a Minister for 6 years is that that organisation is very professional, very objective, and very neutral. At some stage the National Party hopes to have something to do with the State Services Commission. God only hope, not in my lifetime! National will rue the day that it attacks the neutrality of the State Services Commission. I advise National to keep its aim focused on the Government, not on that organisation.

One of the things we ask ourselves is what the National Party stands for and what it would do if it ever became the Government. In the old days we knew what the National Party stood for. I talk of Holyoake, Marshall, and so on. We may not have liked those National Party members but at least they had principle and philosophy, and we knew they would do something different from the Labour Party when they got into power. The problem with this National Party is that no one knows what its members stand for. They used to stand for things, but no one knows what they are now.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Tax cuts.

Yes, it is kind of like Labour with a few tax cuts, and I will talk about that in a minute. At one stage National members were violently opposed to the nuclear-free policy, and now they agree with it. They were opposed to the Cullen superannuation fund, and now they support it. They were opposed to income-related rents. Indeed, I used to be the Labour spokesperson on housing, and they were violently opposed to income-related rents. They said it was unfair, and that sort of thing. Now, they support it. They were opposed to Kyoto, and now they support it. They say they always supported it! This is all very odd.

The problem with National Party members is that they are prepared to say anything to anyone, and that is the difficulty. New Zealand is such a small country that eventually if a party says one thing to one crowd, and says something completely different to another, the matter will eventually get out. So one can never get away with it. My advice to National members is to say something, when they have worked out what it is that they believe in.

But National is promising to spend more, and it is promising that to everyone. It says it will give massive tax cuts. But no one believes that can all be done. In fact, The Hollow Men says not to state exactly what one is going to do but to wait until afterwards, and then do it. It says that is a much better strategy. By our calculations, National would be giving about $5 billion in tax cuts, but where will that money come from? What would it cut in order to do that? I ask members opposite whether they would cut spending in health. Do I hear any answer? No, I do not.

It has not been a stellar moment in New Zealand politics in the last couple of weeks, because actions by this Government have called into question two issues—two principles—that lie at the heart of political balance in New Zealand. The first issue is the so-called electoral reform legislation, and the second is the very poor treatment accorded to Madeline Setchell, which raises the issue about the political neutrality of the Public Service, and that is what I wish to concentrate on.

In the history of the democratic politics of our kind, issues of principle are not fought out in a seminar, and they are not fought out academically; they are always fought out over a very specific issue. Anyone even remotely familiar with the history of this Parliament and its antecedents knows that to be the case. That is why this case of Madeline Setchell deserves very considerable thought by people who are interested in the future of the political process in this country.

I sometimes wonder whether people realise how unusual the matter of political balance in New Zealand really is. It rests, to a very, very large extent, on convention, or, to find another way of putting it, on common decency. We do not have a written constitution, in the sense of having a consolidated single document to constrain the executive. We do not have an executive separated from the Parliament, as in the case of the United States. We do not have a bicameral Parliament to act as a check on the untrammelled power of the executive.

Most times our system works pretty well, but it rests to an unusual extent on convention or common decency. One of the principles at the core of that convention is, indeed, the political neutrality of our Public Service. Yes, one can see the political tentacles reach down into the Civil Service of the United States, and many other administrations, precisely because they have other elements in their constitution to restrain the power of the executive. But in New Zealand we rest, to a very large extent, on convention and decency. And this case has compromised one of those elements.

I have spent 30 years in the Public Service, and I am very proud of the New Zealand Public Service. I believe that it is corrupt in the least possible sense of any Public Service that I have ever come across. Is it excellent? In my view it is patchy. It is excellent in parts and mediocre in other parts. But is it politically neutral? In the experience that I have had, it is incredibly politically neutral.

I know a huge number of the senior public servants in this country, understandably. Anyone who has worked for 30 years in the Public Service—in Treasury, in foreign affairs, in the Prime Minister’s department, and in the old Department of Trade and Industry—would be in the same position. I know four chief executive officers extremely well, on a personal basis. These are people I have worked with, for 30 years in some cases. These are people with whom I have had thousands of hours of conversations.

I tell the House that however difficult it may be to believe, for people in the Labour Party who claw their way into the institution by an obsession with partisan politics, I have no idea—absolutely no idea—what the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does when he goes into the ballot box, what the head of the Prime Minister’s department thinks when he goes into the ballot box, what the heads of the divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry think when they cast their votes, or what the Secretary to the Treasury does when he casts his vote. I have not got a clue, and the reason I have not got a clue is that in all the hundreds of hours that we have had discussions on every conceivable subject, we never ever discuss this. It is absolutely a private matter, and that is the reason that I have no idea about the personal and political preferences of senior advisers. I think that is a magnificent thing that we should cherish in this country, because it lies at the heart of political balance.

If the Prime Minister thinks this issue has just gone away, by casting a few red herrings on the waters, I think she will find, to her cost, that it is very much a live issue.

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa i tēnei wiki i whakaritea hei whakanuinga mā tātou i tō tatou reo Māori; kia riro ko te reo Māori hei reo kōrerotanga i roto i ngā kōkorutanga katoa. Greetings, fellow parliamentarians and Mr Assistant Speaker, at this time, Māori Language Week, where we promote the language as a vehicle for communication, and as a strong contributor to our growing identity as a nation. I offer those words because they are in contrast to the very weak and confused contribution offered by someone who from time to time makes a strong thespian contribution to the House, Mr Groser. He went further than Dr Mapp, who, despite his many years of holding forth and blighting the minds of university students at Auckland University, has precious few thespian virtues about him.

However, I stand to support an earlier speaker Mr Swain, and I remind everyone that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to give a straight answer on the big issues confronting us as a nation. At all times he has refused to straighten his delivery with the students of the nation. Our Prime Minister, when we fought the election, showed not a sliver of doubt in leaving the families of students at tertiary institutions in the position of understanding that the burden of tertiary education would be inordinately easy under our side. But that man has refused to come clean and admit that National’s agenda is to reduce the props that the State offers in order to enlarge the prospects of our university students. He is a person who has cultivated an image up and down the country—fortunately, it is not stretching very far outside commercial circles—of having been raised in modest circumstances, of having risen to the upper levels of commercial citadels, and of having been an expert on the currency and on what is likely to become of the currency as people move in and out of trading.

We have not heard one fresh, one single, one constructive contribution from Mr Key in that regard, and that saddens me. At least we know from Dr Cullen, from the Prime Minister, and from the entire Government front bench that there is no end of fresh, exciting ideas to uplift. As we say in Māori, te iti me te rahi [the small and the large]—people at all levels in society. But John Key offers nothing. That will count against Mr Key. Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that he could fund the entire election campaign from his resources. I have no doubt in my mind that he has been prevailed upon, and that the plan has probably been promoted with that strength of his in mind, but he will need more than deep pockets. He will need more than a reputation from distant areas in order to carry him forward, because at the moment we have a fantastic economy.

We have an economy where investment in capital infrastructure has grown. We have a situation where great amounts of imported capital equipment is flowing into the country. Yes, the dollar is at a troublesome height, but we do not get a strong dollar unless we have buoyancy and resilience in the economy. This morning the leader of all the exporters, Mr Walters, said on television that he did not want to see indiscriminate intervention. That is fine, and it shows that he believes that we have a strong future in relation to our economy.

There is one area where I think Mr Key has been of assistance to us. He has gone out of his way to befuddle my whanaunga over there in the Māori Party. Of course, those members are seeking a new partnership, no longer with the Crown but with the judiciary. The partnership they seek with the judiciary is to allow our people to go, year after year, month after month, bleak episode after bleak episode, back to the courts to rerun tired, irrelevant arguments about the seabed and foreshore. They will put their bill forward, which I will have a great deal to say about this afternoon—although it is rather strange that we should contribute such fine thoughts to modest and totally useless proposed legislation that will soon find its way to the scrap heap of parliamentary history. Mr Key has sought to mislead those members, they have misled our iwi, and our iwi will show them where Tuku Morgan, Tau Henare, Rāna Waitai, Tuariki Delamere, and Tū Wylie—despite the best efforts of his association with Ngāi Tahu—have ended up. I say that Māori Party members should not mislead Te Ao Māori. They should not tell Te Ao Māori that they seek to be independent but quietly want to move us further back into a grievance mentality, with the active encouragement of Mr Key. Kia ora tātou.

The Green Party is horrified at the prospect that the directors of Auckland International Airport may get away with selling it off to the highest bidder, regardless of that bidder’s nature or origins. That airport is one of Auckland’s and New Zealand’s key strategic assets. It is our main gateway for inbound and outbound tourists. It is a major airport for our imports and exports, and the company has one of New Zealand’s largest business activity zones, owning large swathes of prime commercial land with strategic harbour frontage.

Manukau Mayor Sir Barry Curtis is totally opposed to a 51 percent foreign-owned and controlled stake in the airport. We agree with him that such a move is inappropriate and that the control of such a key asset should be left in the hands of New Zealanders. Unless the Minister for Land Information, David Parker, and Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard make a clear decision not to allow the control of this key infrastructure asset to pass into foreign hands, it will be a disaster for both the Auckland regional economy and any long-term vision of national self-reliance.

The Rt Hon Winston Peters was absolutely right when he stated in a media release yesterday afternoon that the core question here that needs to be asked about this proposal is, who will profit? Anyone can see that allowing Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, or any other foreign company for that matter, to take control of Auckland International Airport would also simply mean that in future the profits will flow out of our economy and literally into the pockets of the highest overseas bidder. We have sold off enough of our economy, land, and housing already, over the last 20 to 25 years. A simmering resentment burns around New Zealand, and I think it cuts across all party political lines, about the extent to which we have allowed the family silver and even the family gold to be hocked off to rich overseas individuals and companies. We have all seen the disaster that eventuated when our national rail system was sold—something that made us a worldwide laughing stock; I remember it well. We are still somewhat desperately trying to pick up the pieces now.

To allow our largest international airport, which services our one major metropolis, to be sold to a controlling foreign interest would be just as disastrous as the sale of the rail system. The Auckland International Airport board chairman, Mr John Maasland, makes claims that such a sale would boost tourism. Tourism earns us around $18 billion a year and is our largest export sector, accounting for 18.7 percent of our export revenue and 9 percent of our GDP. The number of international arrivals has doubled since 1993, to 2.4 million in 2006. Tourism is in fact one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, as well as one of our own.

Foreign investors have been quick to realise the lucrative potential of the tourism industry and have been buying up considerable key assets. Four of the top 10 transport and tourism operators in this country, for example, are foreign-owned. However, although ownership does not guarantee any new investment in our country, it does guarantee significant outflows of assets in the form of the profit paid out through dividends, as anyone can understand. We have a history in this country of lucrative national assets being corporatised, which readies them for privatisation. They are then privatised, even if they are sold only to the New Zealand public, and are taken over legally, with the assent of a board whose primary interests are not aligned with our country’s interests. How does it help the New Zealand economy if the tourists who visit New Zealand end up landing at a foreign-owned airport, travelling in foreign-owned campervans, visiting foreign-owned iconic tourist sights, and spending money that will simply go back to the overseas owners?

Finally, I will just add a very Green caveat to this and any other discussion about the future of airports and air travel in this country. We have to recognise that with the imminent impacts of climate change and peak oil becoming increasingly apparent to most of us at least, the future of air travel is uncertain and it needs to be managed carefully. The supply of oil will become increasingly scarce and expensive within the next 5 years, even if great discoveries eventuate off Taranaki or in the Southern Ocean. We will need to manage a reduced quantity of air transport for the greatest benefit of our country, and it is unlikely that such careful management would be either a motivation or anything like a priority for the prospective buyers from Dubai.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I also acknowledge Māori Language Week, and in particular acknowledge my newspaper at home, the Gisborne Herald, which wins prizes every year for its extraordinary contributions to the promotion of the Māori language.

We have certainly seen an interesting week in politics. One could say that we have seen and experienced a new low in political manipulation and in political cant. When I look at the Electoral Finance Bill, which was tabled this week and is due to come into this House tomorrow, I cannot believe my eyes. Someone said to me today that it was not quite believable that a Government could be quite so dishonest—so flagrantly change the rules to suit itself—that it could almost be accused of corrupting the electoral system. That is something that was passed on to me just today, when the details of the Electoral Finance Bill came out through the media. I know from the look on your face, Mr Assistant Speaker, that we cannot make those accusations within this House, and I am not making them in those words. But I do want to look at what that bill actually proposes.

First of all, it needs to be said that this legislation has been entirely developed by the Government, without any consultation with this Parliament as a whole. That is unprecedented. It ignores the normal conventions, where major electoral legislation like this bill is normally consulted on and discussed amongst all political parties, in the interests of democracy. I think that that word has become a foreign language to this Government. The Government has talked more to the media about its thinking, as the bill has developed, than it has talked to its major political opposition. Of course, the Māori Party, which the Prime Minister said at the last election was the last cab off the rank, is one of the last cabs off the rank again this time round. It has not been consulted, it has had no input into the legislation, and it has been given the same opportunity as the general public to debate the bill: when it is already in legislative form. So we have seen a perversion of the normal democratic processes around developing legislation that is very important to our democratic process.

When we look at this bill, we see that the first sentence of the explanatory note talks about providing more transparency and accountability in the democratic process. One would think, wahoo, here we go. But when we read the detail, we see that inserted into this process is a person called a financial agent. One has to ask what the role of that agent is. What is the problem that necessitates providing for such an agent? Before, an MP or a candidate was accountable for the spending on his or her election campaign. If that person made a mistake or overspent, he or she bore the penalty for that. We have seen, in not too recent times, an MP lose his position in this House because of overspending or because he spent incorrectly: outside the rules.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Reg Boorman was his name.

Reg Boorman—who was he? Was he a National Party MP? No, he was a Labour Party MP who broke the rules and lost his seat as a consequence of that. There was direct accountability. That is what this bill purports to give, but it actually inserts another person into the process, so that if an MP or a candidate does step over the line, that person can always stand back and say that is not his or her fault but the financial agent’s fault. Again, we see this Labour Government put another person between itself and any sort of accountability for wrongdoing. That is not about transparency, and that is not about accountability.

The explanatory note of the bill goes on to talk about promoting participation in parliamentary democracy. That has to be the biggest load of hogwash in this legislation. This Labour Government does not believe in public participation in the process of democracy; in fact, the whole bill is about how to prevent the public playing any part in our democratic system.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.