General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One of the things we all learn very quickly in politics is that we do not set out an agenda that raises the hopes of people, and then spend our time not delivering on those promises. That is one of the things we learn very quickly in politics.

When members on this side of the House came into power in 1999, we came into the ruins of the National Government of the 1990s. It was like coming into a smoking city after it had been run across by tanks after the Second World War. There were just little bits of National members poking up here and there as they waved their little white flags, saying: “We have had enough! We have been here for 9 long years. Please liberate us from Government, because we have raised hopes so often and we have failed to deliver so often that the people of New Zealand want to see us elected to Opposition.” Of course, that is what they got for their wishes.

On this side of the House, over the last very short 8 years, we have been focusing on saying what we will do, and doing exactly what we say. We have a manifesto-driven Government. If anybody wants to know what Labour is doing, he or she can just go to the manifesto and look, and the next promise will roll off the production line. We are a party, and we are a Government, working with our outstanding coalition partner, Mr Jim Anderton, and working with the wonderful support of parties like United Future, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and the Green Party. The only party that does not do the right thing, of course, is the National Party, as those members sit over there on the other side of the House. But we have worked our way through success during that time.

The National Party likes to say that it is luck—8 years of luck. National had 9 years of no luck whatsoever, so I guess if you want to stick with the lucky party, you support something over here. During that time we have built up a record of economic success, social progress, and a sense of national identity where people are bursting with pride for their country. Even John Key came home to be part of all this. Even John Key came home to be part of the huge success of our nation. We are committed now to the sustainable development of this nation.

In the National Party, panic is setting in. National has had the honeymoon. You hear the nervous laughter coming through. Panic is setting in from the—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Here we go, Mr Brownlee—panic setting in.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is far from panic setting in. This is actually a reasonable speech for that Minister, but unfortunately it is being ruined by the fact that he appears to have forgotten, in all these many years he has spent in this place, that it is inappropriate to bring you into the debate. He has done it on no fewer than six occasions in the last 4 minutes.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, he has, and for one of his experience I would not have expected it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shock myself at times, I know.

The panic is settling in. As I look across to the front bench I can see the nervous shuffle going on, and I can see the panic in what is being said. You know, National members now cannot hold a story from one day to the next—talk about panic! Is it not amazing to watch Mr Key over there just about disappear into the leather every time the Iraq story is raised? He said one thing, and then he said another. On the housing issue, we have heard the same kind of thing. One day Mr Key said that first home buyers’ aspirations would be met, and the next day he said there should be no development at Hobsonville. Members can look at the example of the therapeutics legislation. One day Mr Key said he has full support for the therapeutics bill, the next day he said National would not support it, and then he said: “If you give us a pen we will sign it.”

National’s stance on the climate change story is an amazing kind of story. In the old days Mr Key said he absolutely did not believe in global warming, and then we heard him on 6 November saying: “I firmly believe in climate change”—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: And always have!

—”and I always have believed in exactly that kind of thing.” He said that he did not want to change Working for Families, then he did want to change it. He said of superannuation that he supported it, then he said that he did not support it. On school zoning he said that he wanted it, and then Katherine Rich said: “You don’t want it.” Then he said that he did want it, and she said that that was morally reprehensible. Who is actually saying the same thing day after day in the National Party?

I think that these questions have to be put to the National Party: what does National stand for? Will National members say anything to anybody? Do they say the things that they heard when they talked to the last person they met? Do they actually have anything to contribute? The chance to contribute comes today in this debate, with a 5-minute speech. I challenge any of the National speakers to give us one idea—one concrete, cost-able, put-into-place idea that we can debate with them. [Interruption] That will do. Mr English is eager to get up. David Carter over there is eager to rise, but Gerry Brownlee is not so keen. I want to hear one cost-able, real, implement-able idea from the National Party today, so that we know it stands for something.

Let us just review the last couple of weeks in the life of a Labour Government that believes it has the confidence of this House under, apparently, a Prime Minister who is on top of everything. Labour has sacked one of its rising-star Ministers after 2 weeks of damaging publicity about his dishonesty and the Government’s dithering. The head civil servant—the head of the New Zealand civil service—is now embroiled in investigating himself, as well as other senior civil servants, for questionable statements and articles made in respect of the sacking of the said rising-star Minister.

Today we hear that the national airline, which is 80 percent owned by the Government, has been involved in carrying Australian troops to the Iraqi war—an Iraqi war that the Government is opposed to—with the knowledge of Government officials and perhaps Government Ministers. That is yet to be established. This is a foreign policy embarrassment on a scale we have not seen for years.

They are only three things. We also have the Government facing humiliating defeat on its Electoral Finance Bill. After 18 months of aggressive talk about how the bill would change everything, during which the bill has been considered in detail by Cabinet, now that the bill is in the public arena no one supports it except New Zealand First and the Greens, and now the Government is going to toss the Minister of Justice to the dogs and blame him.

All of this has happened in 3 weeks, and these are only the issues we know about. This has all happened in 3 weeks under Helen Clark. She is deeply involved with each one of these issues: the sacking of the Minister; the problems with the chief civil servant Mark Prebble and the others; the foreign policy to which she has pinned her name so strongly and concerning which she has been undermined by her Ministers, officials, and her own airline; and the Electoral Finance Bill, which she pathetically tried to say on Monday was nothing to do with her. She chaired the Cabinet meeting. She issued the instructions to the Labour strategists who wrote that bill. On Monday she said that the bill obviously needed changes, and after 2 days of questioning she cannot say one respect in which she believes the bill needs to change.

I want to say to the Speaker and to the House that it is hard to believe that Helen Clark and the rotting Labour Party have the confidence of this House. Now that the Government has six different agreements, it is reduced to sending a member of Parliament for New Zealand First—a competent member, who will do a good job—off to be High Commissioner in the Cook Islands, so that Labour can stay as the Government. That is what is happening.

Then, today, the leader of New Zealand First, wittingly or unwittingly, is caught up in the biggest foreign policy debacle that this Parliament has seen. Foreign policy is actually almost all bipartisan these days—almost all bipartisan. The way that Helen Clark is going to deal with this is to muzzle all the criticism. She will cast a legal drift-net that will catch every single criticism, even if it is from the parents’ committee of the local creche. If members of such a committee are campaigning for more funding for the next year, they will have to make statutory declarations and/or register with the Government if they want to criticise Steve Maharey’s free early childhood education policy.

Helen Clark saw that legislation. She ticked it off. She told her Minister to put it before Parliament, and she is responsible. How pathetic is it that the Prime Minister, who is meant to be on top of everything, is now saying it is nothing to do with her? She said that Labour stands by the principle of a level playing field.

The previous speaker, Bill English, deserves all the support he can get from his colleagues, because we have just heard a speech from the man who was the least successful National Party leader in New Zealand’s history. He led National to its worst electoral result since the 1930s. Such is the poverty of leadership in the National Party that Bill English has been put back on the front bench next to John Key, the man whose vote saw him lose the leadership the first time and the man whom Bill English deeply resents and wants to remove. That is the truth of it.

Let us dissect what Bill English had to say. The first thing he had the temerity to raise was the question of troops being sent from Australia by Air New Zealand. The debate that has been happening in this Chamber, I say to Mr English, has been about the National Party’s desire to send New Zealand troops to Iraq, which is what John Key would have done if he had been in a position to do so 3 years ago.

Then Mr English talked about honesty. What about the honesty of Mr Key, who said, and is on record as saying, he would have sent troops to Iraq but now denies that he would ever have done so? That is dishonest and that is misleading. All John Key had to do was to get up and say: “I got it wrong. My judgment was absolutely inappropriate. I apologise to New Zealand, and I’ve changed my mind.” But he did not do that. Why did he not do that? It is because that did not fit into National Party members’ contrived spin about how they want to place themselves. We have an Opposition that demands the resignation of people for misleading the public, when their own leader has been caught out being dishonest, and was, as recently as last Friday, on record as saying he never would have sent troops to Iraq when clearly he said he would.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been numerous occasions in this House over the last 4 years or so where the National Party Opposition has been pulled up for making a point about Helen Clark’s signing of a painting, Helen Clark’s sitting in the back of a car going at enormous speeds across the plains of Canterbury—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The point is that on all those occasions the Prime Minister took a position that we thought was somewhat dishonest, and we often referred to her as a liar, only to be told that such a comment was unparliamentary. In that regard, quite clearly, and regardless of the fact that actions have been taken by the Government in this matter, Mr Goff is quite out of order in his speech. We should have an apology for those—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s because you can’t drive a car from the back seat.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mr Deputy Speaker, is this a point of order or not? The shifty-looking Minister of State Services over there—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no—it might have been a point of order, but you are fast drifting off it.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The point is that we think Mr Goff should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is probably a separate point of order afterwards, because you did not pull up the member when he repeated some out of order statements himself, as part of his point of order. Things would have been quite rightly ruled out of order previously.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Mr Goff, did I hear you mention the word “liar” just before you sat down?

Yes, I did. I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you withdraw and apologise.

I apologise and withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That takes care of that.

John Key had the chance this afternoon to stand up in response to the question asked of him and to explain himself, justify himself, and excuse himself. He did not stand up, and not one of his colleagues took a call to defend the integrity of John Key—not one. They know that what John Key said last Friday, yet again, is untrue and deliberately misleads the public. They know that. It is very clear. There are double standards from Opposition members who demand resignations from everybody else but do not apply those same standards of integrity and honesty to themselves.

What John Key has demonstrated in the last couple of weeks is his inexperience, his lack of judgment, and the fact that he flip-flops. He is the man who said climate change was a hoax, and the next minute he said we need to do more to resolve it. I do not object to a member changing his mind over time and gaining a bit of experience and a bit more judgment. But John Key did it again on climate change, did he not? He said: “I’m in favour of doing things to stop climate change. I’m against global warming and always have been.” We know that is not true. He said it was a hoax, and now he says he has always been against it. Twice he has been caught out not telling the truth, and this man would have the country believe that he is fit to be Prime Minister!

I think that one of the most important judgments made by this Labour Government was to keep New Zealand out of being entrapped in the war in Iraq. I am proud of the judgment that was shown then. John Key is now saying that now he knows the way the war has gone, he would not have wanted to be there. We do not want a man with the judgment of hindsight. We want as Prime Minister a woman who made the right judgment at the time, together with her Cabinet. We knew that it was not appropriate to send troops to Iraq. The fact that we did not do so is probably respected by our friends and allies who did, but what they will not respect is John Key, who gets up and says we should fight for the values we believe in, and who is now saying that, well, actually, National believed in those values but it was up to the other side to send troops, and they would not have done it. I know that our friends and allies would despise that comment. That is a comment that shows a lack of courage of one’s convictions. It is one thing to be against the war, but it is another thing to say one is in favour of it but somebody else should fight it.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. A member may not imply any member or party lacks courage, and I think you did, Mr Goff—not quite directly, but just withdraw the remark, please.

I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is a very unusual thing to do with you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on many occasions the phrase “courage of convictions” has been used in this House and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been ruled out before. It is a phrase that members do use. It is a challenge to people to stand up for what they believe in, and I ask, if you are making that ruling, that it not be done in a precedent-setting way.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not making a ruling; I have made my ruling. But I thank the member for his comments. I have made my ruling. I did not like the remark, so that action is finished.

The New Zealand way is that when we believe in something, we commit to it. New Zealand under a Labour-led Government believed in stopping terrorism in Afghanistan, and we made that commitment. It is not the New Zealand way to say: “I believe in it. We should be there.”, then to say: “But we’re not going to be there. Somebody’s going to fight it for us.” I go back to what I was saying. What I really object to is that John Key misled the country. There is no doubt about it. He has not apologised or withdrawn for doing that.

I have a simple question for this House, and I am sure—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge you—you will have an order of speakers in front of you—but it is most unusual that there are two Government speakers one after the other. It could be that that is the only way they can have any effect these days, but could you advise us of the appropriateness of that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have raised a procedural matter, but I think the Opposition might enjoy being able to rebut two Government members instead of just one.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have one simple question for this House today. Is the problem with National one of credibility or is it one of confusion? Is it too much of one and not enough of the other? Well, I think that is the answer. There is too much confusion and not enough credibility. We have heard for the last week how John Key has been totally and utterly confused about his position on Iraq. Did he support New Zealand participating in the war in Iraq, and what, indeed, does he support now? We are totally and utterly confused—just as he is confused—but we will give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it is not just Mr Key who is confused. On 1 May 2004 Mr Power said at the National Party conference, as National’s spokesperson on defence: “The National Party has always been international in its outlook. Without reservation, we will support our close allies Australia, the United States, and Britain whenever and wherever our commitment is called upon.” Does Simon Power now support New Zealand being in Iraq? That is the question I ask of him. What is his response? Nothing. He is absolutely silent. Simon Power is also confused. Does he support New Zealand being in Iraq or does he not?

But it is not just those two front-bench members. Last week in the House we had the Hon Dr Nick Smith confused as well. He got up in a debate and said: “What I really find interesting is the number of questions the then Labour Opposition asked me during my period of 18 months as Minister of Corrections. Do members know how many questions it asked me? Zero.” That is what he said in this House, and he misled this House. I found his statement unbelievable so I went back and checked Hansard and found that we had asked three questions of that member. Three is not zero. So the question is: was Nick Smith also confused, just as Simon Power has been confused, and just as John Key has been confused, or is it an issue of credibility?

I put it to members that the issue is one of credibility, because nothing that the front bench of the National Party says can be trusted—nothing. National members cannot be trusted in what they say about Iraq or about housing. We cannot trust any policy statements from Mr Key or any one of his front-bench members, second-tier members—including Anne Tolley—or backbench members. None of them can be trusted, because not only do they not have policy, not only are they unsure what they stand for, but they do not know what they said and they do not know what to say. That it is total confusion, I believe, is the nicest thing we can say.

In the end it is an issue of credibility. Labour will be quite happy to go to the people of New Zealand next year and stand on the issue of credibility, because what we say is what we do. If the National Party and John Key as its leader continue to go around New Zealand and make statements, do a U-turn on those statements, and then be unclear about what was said, what will the country think of the National Party? Well, I think we will find out at the next election.

I will take a brief moment to mention Simon Power, the National spokesperson on corrections. He is the man who stated that he does not ever want to be the Minister of Corrections. We will be happy to know that he will not be, either, because National members will not get into those ministerial roles. The only thing that Simon Power has really said that I believe is that National will privatise corrections and the prison system in this country. I believe that—I really do—because National has tried it before.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: We will do a better job than you do now.

Oh, the member says that National did a better job. National claimed that the Auckland Central Remand Prison was cheaper to run when it was privatised. That was rubbish. Like most things National said, that was rubbish. In fact, that prison is a clear example of the public system delivering prison management in this country that is not only fairer and more ethical but also cheaper. I will ask Mr Power before he makes any other statements to look at the experience of Victoria, over the Tasman, where private prisons have been brought back into the public system.

That contribution was from Damien O’Connor. With Benson-Pope gone, the media are now running a sweepstake on who will be next to go. My bet is it will be Damien O’Connor, and he will not only lose his job as a Minister, but, at the next election, lose his seat of West Coast - Tasman, which will be taken by Chris Auchinvole of the National Party. It has been a tremendously bad couple of weeks for Labour: the sacking of Benson-Pope; Mark Prebble under suspicion; the electoral reform legislation unravelling; and then today we heard that Air New Zealand has now become a military carrier for the Aussie troops.

But I want to talk about something that I saw leading the news last night on Television One. It was, of course, the revelation that the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia has now reached 106 a day on average. I went back and had a look at some comments that the Prime Minister made when she was the Leader of the Opposition. She said this about the number of people crossing the ditch: “We can no longer stand back and watch our best and brightest leave and take their ideas, and now even their business, with them. … That means it is time to act.” That is what Helen Clark said in 1999. Then I recalled that remarkable night of the 1999 election. The then soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Anderton, came on TV, and almost in a Martin Luther King model talked about those young New Zealanders overseas with talent and skill: “Come home and rebuild the nation.”

Have we heard Mr Anderton utter much since then, as the number of people who leave this country permanently and go to Australia has continued to increase? They go for a number of reasons. Some of them probably go to dodge the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “Bauble” Winston Peters. But a good number go because they earn substantially more money over there and because the tax rates here are too high. For seven Budgets in a row Michael Cullen has effectively increased tax rates in all of them. Compare that with what Peter Costello has managed to do in Australia.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You were told all that.

In one of Winston Peters’ numerous trips overseas, he should find out what is happening. Peter Costello has driven taxes down for the last five Budgets so New Zealanders who choose to go on a flight of 3 hours to settle in Australia can earn 50 percent more than they do here. It is now getting to a crisis point.

The other topic I want to cover briefly is, of course, the way the Labour Government is gerrymandering into this Parliament electoral reform legislation expressly designed so that it can have access to taxpayers’ money to spread its message, but, more specifically, to make sure that the National Party has trouble getting its messages out to the voters. It is hitting not only the National Party, but also organisations like Federated Farmers, which have already had to campaign against the “fart tax”, the microchipping of farm dogs, and Helen Clark’s plan to open up private land to public access. Every time Labour has embarked on those campaigns it has had to spend considerably more than the $60,000 that Labour is now trying to impose on any organisation sending its message out to New Zealanders in an election year.

The electoral reform legislation is about gerrymandering the system. It is a desperate effort by a Labour Government that knows it is in the death throes. Its stench of decay is something that is measurable right around the country, so its last effort is to wheel in this legislation. When the editorials in the country start noting how bad it is, Helen Clark says: “Well, it might need some changing; it obviously needs a few changes.” Then when we asked her in the House during this parliamentary week what those changes were she suddenly seemed to have amnesia, as she is inclined to do on a very regular basis, and we do not know now what job the select committee has to do with that legislation. We had Mr Maharey in Parliament today saying: “Leave it to the select committee process; that’s where these things need to be ironed out.” Yet I recall many pieces of legislation, the Employment Relations Act probably being the primary one, where there were thousands of submissions saying the legislation was wrong and Labour rammed it through, ignoring the select committee process. We had the quote from Michael Cullen: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. That is what Labour thinks of the select committee process.

In contrast to that loud rant, where metaphors were mangled, vocabulary was lost, and the rest of us were gagging until it came to a suitably fitful end, I would like to bring our attention back to what must pass as either the most dismal or the most useless party conference that we have had the displeasure of seeing in recent times. Usually National people like to convey to voters and to members on the Government side of the House that they are match fit, and that there is an actual game about to take place. Now on the back of that conference, the leader—and I admit that leaders do, from time to time, feel great pressure—Mr Key, not only got the name of his own party wrong but came back here showing hubris arrogance, and boy, did he fall a long way off the horse that he believes he is riding unchallenged to victory! That showed how timid, disorganised, and actually disunited the front bench is on that side of the House.

Not only has there been not a single idea or anything that is fresh—not a single fresh idea—from National but there is a deep, abiding belief in its born right to rule. The National members are not going out to the nation, to capture the minds of young people and reassure old people. They are not doing that, because their leader is saying two different things about retirement savings. Mr Key is saying two different things about superannuation in his short, and no doubt to be unsuccessful, reign. He has also spread deep fear amongst the toiling families of Aotearoa as to what is to become of student loans.

What was evident in the last election was the unstinting courage of Labour’s leader. Without a sliver of doubt Helen Clark made the most amazing call, and all children and parents came flocking to a leadership that was going to deliver reassurance and security in terms of the future of education. But none of that has been shown by Mr Key. Yes, I did say that I thought he was dyeing his hair—I did say that. I think it is because of the pressure the man faces, in his seat. But the pressure does not really come from the media. It comes from the fact that Mr Key has tried to climb too quickly, with ideas that are too shallow and with a belief that he does not have to fight—that he does not have to go out there and capture the confidence of the people. That is why National will not be successful.

💬 Hon Members: Oh, no!

That is why National will not be successful. Yes, despite the clamour, there will be no success.

I turn to all the nonsense about a select committee not being able to receive submissions and refine a bill to do with such a vital area as the funding of elections. Of course, our Labour Party does not want to see ongoing destructiveness take place through shadowy forces being unwilling to stand up and own their own funding, etc. The opposition to addressing that issue comes from the National side of the House. Every voter knows that religious, destructive, shadowy forces joined up with Dr Brash, and that they were caught out, many millions of dollars later. The country knows that democracy cannot be bought; democracy has to be earned. Despite Mr Key’s great wealth, he actually has to go out there in order to enjoy the confidence and trust of the people. That is what needs to happen. Of course, the conference demonstrated that the National Party is miles away from that—it has not a hope; not a single sliver of hope—which is why it fears Labour’s attempt to bring transparency, openness, and fairness to the matter of how elections should be funded.

The Electoral Finance Bill is very simple, but why does National fear it? That party knows it must continue to bring bucket loads of money to the next election. But, you see, the average Kiwi is not overwhelmed by that. The average Kiwi saw the mounting amount of dough thrown in all sorts of directions by shadowy commercial forces, and by religious, destructive, exclusive, divisive forces, all of which were commandeered by Dr Brash. Did that lead to victory? No, it did not then, and it will not now.

Everyone knows that there is one party in the centre of politics in this country, between the economic and social extremes of politics, and that that party is New Zealand First. The first thing I want to say today is that certain commentators are predicting what will happen in 2008, and again they are demonstrating their ignorance of politics and of how the people of this country think.

I have been in politics for a little while, but I have never seen an Opposition front bench as weak as the one we have today. Tony Ryall was not a competent Minister. He was not, and would not be one if he was ever given the job in 2008. Judith Collins was best described, by Bill English, as someone who had been promoted way above her ability. That is a fact. She has no experience whatsoever. Then we go to Bill English. Bill English cannot handle the pressure of politics; I know that because I was in Government with him. Neither as a former Minister of Health nor as a former Minister of Finance was he up to the job. The media can write all the puffery it likes, and we can have all the pro-Treasury rubbish we like, but Bill English simply was not up to dealing with the crisis in the economy in 1997, 1998, and 1999. As for John Key, well, he is a nice enough guy—he has a nice smile—but he has no experience in his job, whatsoever. Worse still, he has no experience of recent developments, economic and social, in New Zealand.

Then we go on to Gerry Brownlee, Parliament’s heaviest lightweight, and Katherine Rich. Again, Katherine Rich is a nice person, who looks good in a photograph, but those people have no experience or capacity to be where they would be if they were ever chosen by the public—that is, to be front-bench Ministers. We have proven failures as well as the ones I have just mentioned. Nick Smith is not capable of being a Minister again; every parliamentarian knows that. Then we have Maurice Williamson. Maurice is not a bad bloke, but in terms of singing from the same hymn sheet, he has never been in the choir—he has never been in the choir, at all. You see, it showed today. There the National members were, last night and this morning, all over TV about diplomatic appointments. They had the chance to come to this House and front up, but they shrank from it. They cannot even take on the contest. So all the passionate drive and emotion that is required in politics in order for a party to be successful, those members simply do not have.

And those commentators out there who perpetually make fools of themselves will do so again in 2008. They just read their stupid, silly polls. But those polls have not been right, and they have not been right for a long, long time—in fact, for the last 20 years. So why does the public have to be so grossly and massively misinformed in the period between elections?

The National Party today is about either blind opposition or “echo-politics”. Do members notice that—”echo-politics”? What is National’s immigration policy? It now claims to have the same immigration policy as New Zealand First, even though it called us racist. When it comes to law and order and the gangs, National has the same policy as New Zealand First. It is called an “echo-policy” when a party does not have one—except that National will not go the whole way.

When it comes to questions of climate change, all of a sudden National has done a somersault. On the question of why Australia has been comparatively much more successful than New Zealand, I say that is because in the last 20 years it has followed different incremental policies from those we had. And the National Party has been substantially responsible for that. But what does it do now? National repeats the comparison that New Zealand First has been making, whilst refusing to take responsibility for the economic policies that brought the situation about. That is simply “echo-politics”.

In regard to the racing policy, National’s is just a total steal. National went one day to our website, stole the whole thing, put up Lindsay Tisch, and said: “Here is the National Party policy.” On the question of foreign policy, and of making the Pacific the No. 1 issue in our foreign policy, that policy is what McCully now speaks about. Where did he get it from? Well, he did not get it from the National Party; he got it from “echo-politics”—that is, from hearing the announcement of what New Zealand First thinks. The list goes on and on.

But I say the reason why National will not make it in 2008—and every country needs a strong Opposition in Parliament—is that National does not have any integrity. The National members are raising the issue of electoral law and the financing of elections. Well, what sort of party would have the temerity to rise in the House and make an issue of that, when its background and record is to try to squash another party by banning it totally from advertising on radio and TV? There is Bill English, and he and his colleagues were party to that—to filthy, underhand politics—but he wants to be taken as being credible in 2008.

It is a pleasure to join the debate this afternoon, and I had to laugh out loud when I heard one of those earlier National speakers try to imply that Labour was tired. I just about fell over. Labour loves a good battle; it is part of our culture. Labour members of Parliament and Labour Party supporters are fighters. That is who we are. Daddy does not buy us a seat in Parliament, I tell David Carter; we are here because we fight to get here, we fight to stay here, and we fight for the people we feel passionately about.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a long-held tradition in this House that we do not accuse somebody of buying a seat in Parliament. But that is what that member just did. I ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, if that is what the member said, I ask her to withdraw, please.

I withdraw—I am very sorry, David Carter.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

I withdraw. We are prepared to fight, because, unlike National and John Key, we know what it is like to struggle up from the bottom. Many of us are proud to have been raised in State houses. I was raised in a State house, as were many of my colleagues. We do not believe in pulling up the ladder behind us once we have got there. We do not trade on the fact that: “Oh, I’m a nice little State house girl.”, or “I’m a nice little State house boy”, or “I’m going to look after those people in State houses.” but in reality then pull up the ladder behind us.” Of course, unless one is trying to build them in one’s electorate—in Hobsonville, as Mr Key says, but meanwhile he lives in Parnell, and how nice it would be to buy two sections—

💬 Hon Member: Six houses!

Six houses. And build one house and a tennis court! No, we are fighters. We believe in sticking up for people who are not quite so well-equipped to get themselves into their own home. We know the importance of having a roof over our heads and the security that gives—a roof that we know we will have for 365 days of the year.

National is all over the place on a whole range of issues. We have sat here for months and months waiting for just one policy. We have not had one yet. In the last week—

💬 Charles Chauvel: Except for the ones they stole from us.

Mr Chauvel is absolutely right. The National Party is not even sure whom it wants to lead it. It has been amusing to watch National members in the last couple of weeks, in particular when they have been under a bit of stress. In fact, we on this side of the Chamber are running a bit of a sweep, because we are kind of enjoying what is going on on the other side. As I said, we are fighters, and we are running a sweep on how many times John Key looks up at the press gallery each day. The numbers are quite high already.

💬 Hon Member: Nearly as often as Don McKinnon.

Yes, he looks up nearly as often as Don McKinnon used to. But we are running a sweep, so in about a week’s time I suspect we will be able to make an announcement. Mr Key has spent so much time looking up that he will probably need to have a bit of chiropractic treatment soon. Quite why he is doing that I do not know.

Also, it was interesting to watch the reaction of National members today. I notice that Bill English gets up to speak only when John Key is away. It is a bit like “John’s away, Bill will come out to play.” Why does Bill English not stand beside his leader and support him? Why does Bill English not stand up and support John Key? Why can those members not operate as a pair, as a duo, supporting each other? Why do they seem to come into their prime when one of them is out of the House?

The other thing that concerns me about National is that its members have absolutely no knowledge of social history in this country. That is absolutely exemplified by the ham-fisted statements they have been making about housing in the last couple of weeks. Ignorance of social policy and social history in this country is incredibly dangerous for New Zealand, because we need to make sure that we do not repeat the problems and the mistakes of the past. We have luminaries over there like that woman from—where is she from? Is it Timaru? She says profound things, like: “We don’t need to borrow money; we’re just going to get it from overseas.” That is a direct quote from one of those supposedly bright sparks, new blood, intelligent young things the National Party has brought in. She demonstrates that she does not understand even the basic elements of finance when she says: “We don’t need to borrow money; we’re just going to get it from overseas.” I kid you not, I say to listeners; all of that can be verified from what she said during the election campaign.

New Zealanders need to be very, very aware of what a National Government would actually mean for this country. It terrifies me.

Two months ago I raised questions with Minister Rick Barker about the existence of endemic loan sharking inside our main casinos, along with other irresponsible and downright criminal behaviour. His response at the time was that he intended to make no comment until an investigation by the Department of Internal Affairs was completed. He said that the department checks all the money that goes in and out of a casino, and has very thorough checks, and that he is “confident the department has a good idea of what is going on.” Well, I say to the Minister, the department might have an idea about what is going on, but what on earth is it doing about it?

I do not know whether the Minister saw the news on Television One last night, but just last week a loan shark at work was filmed in Skycity Casino in Auckland. This gentleman is based in the VIP lounge on the third floor, and further revelations as to the details of his activity are, I believe, to be aired tonight. Not only did the team from Television One film the operations of this fellow; they also chased him around the Skycity car-park without apparently once being seen, much less apprehended, by the supposedly highly regulated and foolproof security systems operating in the casino.

Although this is just one episode, I think it highlights the extent to which slack security and a dubious lack of regulatory attention characterise the approach to criminal activity in New Zealand’s casinos. It appears that security staff numbers are so low that staff cannot even monitor the cameras adequately. In terms of regulators, the Department of Internal affairs appears to check out the casino only during business hours. It does not take an expert to realise that maybe a lot of the perhaps less desirable activity in the casino might actually be happening outside the hours of 9 to 5.

The Minister told me, in question time today, that the department already knows about this particular loan shark who was caught on TV, and that his activity is being followed up. But it seems from the Minister’s attitude that he does not think there is any kind of problem. When will the Minister wake up to the fact that this is all a lot bigger than he thinks? Perhaps the Minister truly does not know what loan sharking is, as he seemed to indicate in his media release following the release of the earlier report from the Department of Internal Affairs—a release in which he asked: “What is a loan shark?”. He then sent his officials away to bring him the answers. Or, is it that the Minister thinks that loan sharking, like that revealed on Television One last night, is actually legal?

Well, I say to the Minister, it is not—not, for example, when people are having to hand over their passports as security, and when they are paying 8 percent a week compound interest with no written contract. It is not legal when a loan shark is operating with impunity inside the four walls of a casino—and now, we know, not only with impunity in terms of the casino itself but also with impunity in terms of the Department of Internal Affairs. None of that is legal, as far as I am aware, under New Zealand law.

I do not think that the Minister understands the seriousness of what is going on, and what damage is being done in and around the casinos and pokie parlours of this country. He may be fooled, but most of the rest of the population are not. Many people would dearly love for there to be a full public inquiry into what is really going on. Both employees in the industry, and gamblers and their families, need an opportunity to tell the truth of what is happening, without fear of reprisal. We need to get the fullest possible picture of the situation, not one given to us through the prism of the Department of Internal Affairs or of gambling operators themselves.

I also call on the Government to withdraw the Gambling Amendment Bill, which it has tabled in Parliament but which has not had its first reading yet. This bill contains only small policy and technical amendments, not the major reforms to the operation of the gambling sector that are so badly needed. I believe that Labour would actually gain tremendous kudos from the public if it dared to take that bill back and start again, on the back of an inquiry into the true depth and nature of what is happening with gambling in our communities right now, both in the casinos and in the non-casino gaming-machine sector.

It is not good enough for the Minister to continue to calmly sit on his hands and wait for the answers to appear magically at some distant point in the future. Real people are suffering right now because of the actions of casino and pokie operators, and the lack of action from departmental regulators. The time to act, I say to the Minister, is now.

I rise with much enjoyment to speak in this debate, which has certainly shown the people of New Zealand that this is a stuttering Government that is going from disaster to disaster. These include the demise of David Benson-Pope, the judicial reviews that abound in health, the more than 700 people who are leaving every week to go to Australia, the record high interest rates that are hitting and hurting ordinary New Zealanders—which of course is something that this Government does not want to talk about—and the demise of the trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. The most recent Labour speaker epitomised that ignorance is bliss. She would be better to be silent and to be thought a fool than to open her mouth and remove all doubt.

I want to further pursue the debate about the dreadful Electoral Finance Bill. This bill epitomises the essence of unintended consequences, and this Government has known many of those. The bill is ill-thought-out, ill conceived, and poorly drafted. Or maybe it is very clever? Perhaps during the course of my speech members will decide which one it is. The recent headlines include: “Bill of wrongs”, “PM is responsible for electoral drift net”, “Labour wants its critics on a register”, “Labour screws the electoral scrum”, and “Labour’s arrogance continues”. These are just some of the headlines. The editorials are speaking out, because the newspapers of the country are starting to understand exactly what the Electoral Finance Bill means. Even Helen Clark is looking for a way to distance herself from the mess, saying today that the bill obviously needs some change. Mark Burton has made contradictory statements. He said that the Government was seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election. That statement could not be further from what this bill will actually achieve.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Has the member read the bill?

I have it in front of me. The explanatory note of the bill states that the bill will “prevent the undue influence of wealth”. Maybe it will, but it will not prevent the Government from using taxpayers’ accumulated wealth to persuade the people to vote for Labour. But the people of New Zealand are too wise for that. The explanatory note states that the bill will “promote participation in parliamentary democracy”. Well, the Minister is wrong again; it will do anything but.

The bill imposes unbelievable requirements on third parties. It is intended, although not openly stated, to shut them up. If third parties try to take a position on a proposition with which one or more candidates or political parties is associated, they will be shut up. It is indeed a scary bill. It is Draconian. Many of the organisations that may be caught up in the third-party requirements will not yet be aware of how they will be caught, will not be aware that it will mean they must scrutinise their newsletters in an election year. They will not be able to state any position with which any candidate or party is associated. I think of some of the organisations that will be caught up in this, such as Parents Centres, Plunket, Federated Farmers, and the National Council of Women. I cannot wait until these organisations realise they cannot express their particular viewpoints in their newsletters during an election year.

What about a young person who uses a chalk drawing on a pavement to express a political view during an election year? That person cannot do so unless he or she has registered with the Electoral Commission. Just imagine how those people will feel when they know they have to register with the commission.

Labour is scared of criticism. That is why this bill looks the way it is. Labour is scared of its own impending demise and scared of political oblivion. It will do anything to screw the scrum. Just imagine the new bureaucracy the Government will have to put in place so that people can register before they put their opinions out there for New Zealanders to understand them. You know, the rest of New Zealand will see what Labour is trying to achieve with this bill. We have seen already that the Prime Minister is starting to read the mood of the nation as New Zealanders start to understand what this bill is all about. Helen Clark had decided she needs to distance herself from what is happening. She is leaving it to the Justice and Electoral Committee to sort it out. By golly, that select committee has some work ahead of it!

I am very proud to be a member of this Labour-led Government that is delivering very good government to this country. It is getting on with the job of governing and delivering strong, stable, prosperous conditions to the people of New Zealand. We are doing what we were elected to do. We are doing what we said we would do, as we have after every other election.

I am also very proud to be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is doing very, very good work in advancing the programme of this Government. It will surprise members opposite, to know that some of that work includes looking at electoral finance reform, trying to get the formulas right, and conducting an inquiry into victims’ rights with the cooperation of Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. That is something he has spearheaded, and it is something we regard as very important. We think the work is important—not the rhetoric. We are considering the efficiency of some of the entities in the justice sector, like the Legal Services Agency, the Law Commission, and the provision of Crown legal services. We are also looking at access to justice. These sorts of things are important to ordinary New Zealanders, and they are the sorts of things that we are trying to look at hard in our committee.

The three matters I have just described are the ones that our committee chair, on behalf of the committee, put before the Speaker in support of an application by the committee to travel to Australia to compare approaches on those questions in a comparable jurisdiction. That request was granted and the committee travelled to Melbourne last week. It is a great shame that the week before our travel, the National Party members of the committee—Mr Finlayson, Mr Auchinvole, and Ms Wagner—announced, via the media, that they would not be participating in the trip. We all know that the public does not like the idea of politicians travelling. We all know, though, that with a good programme and good management, these trips are incredibly valuable. New Zealand is a remote jurisdiction. We are far from our neighbours, and it is very easy to get insular and provincial.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Look at the Internet.

Mr Henare is living proof of that, I am afraid. The National Party, instead of doing what it had agreed to do—participate in the trip, pull its weight, and look at the serious questions—decided to play politics in the media. National members called the trip a junket and said they were not going. They pulled out of the meeting. [Interruption]

I will respond to the criticism that has just been voiced across the House by that member, because the members of the committee who were present—Mr Tanczos, Ms Pillay, Ann Hartley, and myself—can confirm that we undertook 16 substantive visits on that trip. The itinerary will be interesting to the House. First, we went to the Victorian Electoral Commission where we looked at its innovative programme for enrolling younger voters, something we are going to share with the electoral authorities here. There were some good lessons.

The next visit we made was to the Victims Support Agency of the Department of Justice. Again, we were walking the walk, rather than just talking the talk—the victims’ rights rhetoric. We found how important it is to coordinate victims’ services, something that we can do better in this country. That was worthwhile learning. Then we went to the Australian Electoral Commission.

💬 Simon Power: Nationalise it.

I am glad Mr Power thinks it is a good idea. Let us see some commitment to it from the National Party, instead of just the heady rhetoric that is a lot easier to deliver than real services to victims.

As I was saying, we then went to the Australian Electoral Commission and had a look at the three limbs that it says are important in a clean system: public funding for political parties, disclosure regimes that actually work, and campaign spending limits. We heard the commission’s criticism that if one does not have all those legs of the triple, one does not have a satisfactory electoral system. Well, it does not look like we are going to get public funding here, so our select committee is going to have to work as hard as it can on ensuring the other two work as well as they can, and I am certainly committed to that.

The fourth meeting was with the Electoral Matters Committee of the Victorian Parliament where those lessons were further reinforced. Then we saw the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and we shared some experiences about the need to really take the reports of law reform commissions seriously, put them before Parliament quickly, and get their recommendations enacted.

The fifth meeting was with the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council, which is very similar to the body that New Zealand has just created—the Sentencing Council—and we learnt about the importance of the educative function of the council. Again, it was more than just rhetoric, as with the National Party; it was putting things into practice. There were 11 other visits. It was a substantive programme. It was worthwhile, and we actually did the work rather than engage in the rhetoric.

Charles Chauvel was away 5 days, drank 40 glasses of champagne, and had five meetings, and he stands in the House and justifies what was, essentially, a junket. In all my time as a member of Parliament for this House, the Māori Affairs Committee has put in numerous requests to go overseas, and every time those requests have been turned down. Then we hear the justification. Maybe the real justification was that we cannot trust some fellas to go overseas but we can trust these other guys to go overseas—all three Labour MPs—off to the great state of Melbourne in Australia. They had five meetings—that is all—in 5 days. That works out to be one or two meetings a day, counting the meetings that the member did not even get to. He said there were 13 meetings in 5 days. That is not good enough. I say shame on that member—shame, shame, shame.

Let us get back to the Prime Minister. Why is it that the Prime Minister cannot tell the same story 2 days in a row? She tells one story on 1 day and then makes up another story on the next day. Members know who will get it in the backside—it is the Minister of Justice. He will have to fall on his sword because of the stuff-up of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark.

Then I hear on this morning’s news a terrifying piece of news. My former colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly, the only one with street cred, the only sane one in New Zealand First, has decided to jump ship, to make a dash for the door—[Interruption] Absolutely, I know what it is like trying to get out of New Zealand First, by crikey, and I thank the Lord that I did and that I took the opportunity while I was still alive. But this former Minister is off to the sun—

💬 Simon Power: A fine member!

He is a fine member. He is off to the sunny Cook Islands.

But that raises a couple of interesting issues about other important appointments that this Government may see fit to make in the next while. The Rt Hon Winston Peters may very well be the next ambassador to China, although I do not think the Chinese people will take too kindly to that appointment, considering Mr Peters’ reported comments on the Chinese cuisine including that it involves the eating of dogs, as he was wont to say a couple of years ago.

Then New Zealand First has the temerity to have somebody stand in the House and question the Minister of Immigration about new immigrants when that guy asking the question is an immigrant, as well! For goodness’ sake, talk about someone pulling the ladder up once he has got into Godzone! Talk about—

💬 Simon Power: Pull up the drawbridge!

Pull it up. The member is saying: “Pull the drawbridge up, no more immigrants, because I have got to live in Godzone. [Interruption] Exactly, and what about Ron Mark? He could be the ambassador to Oman. He has been there before; maybe he would like to go back there. Poor old Pita Paraone, there is nowhere for him other than Te Puni Kōkiri in Whangarei.

I want to say this though. The Labour Party used to pride itself on the fact that it distanced itself from the war in Iraq. That is all we ever heard from Labour Party members—how they would not get into the fight in Iraq. But now we hear that our own carrier, the one that the Government bailed out to the tune of $180 million and that the Government is now an 80 percent shareholder of, has been carrying Australian troops all the way to Kuwait to fight in a war that Labour members said they would never have any part of.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.