General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I hope there is a second-hand market for those nice red shiny boxes in about 6 months’ time, because I am not sure anyone else will want them.

I know that Labour members do not like to talk about the polls. I know that they do not like to talk about the polls, and who can blame them? Because in 6 months’ time there will be more chance of finding a Mr Whippy man on Mars than a Labour MP in a Māori seat, according to the Marae DigiPoll. No one should be surprised that the polls are doing what they are doing. New Zealanders are not surprised, because they see a Prime Minister who seriously lacks judgment. This is a Prime Minister who thought it was OK to take $800,000 of taxpayers’ money and who did not want to give it back. This is a Prime Minister who thought it was just fine to issue an inquiry into Taito Phillip Field that she did not ever want to respond to—but she was caught napping. “This is fine.”, came from a Prime Minister who thought David Benson-Pope was just following her instructions to politicise the Public Service.

This is a Prime Minister who broke every convention in the book when she changed the electoral finance law for her own self-serving reasons. And Labour members are wondering why they are so unpopular! They are unpopular because this is a Government that has forgotten about the people who put it there. This is a Government that has delivered a doubling of interest rates to New Zealanders. There are 200,000 New Zealanders who are preparing to change their mortgage rate to 10 percent. The base rate was 4.5 percent when Labour came into office. Now the base rate is 8.25 percent and the interest rate at the banks is 10 percent. Labour delivered that for New Zealanders, and Michael Cullen says: “I don’t care, because I can spend your money better than you can.” He will sit smugly on $11 billion surpluses for years because he does not care anymore about the little people who put him here.

The reason it has all gone wrong for Labour is its economic record, its social record, and its environmental record. It does not matter which record one measures—all of it is bad. But guess what? There are three people in the Labour Party caucus who are not so worried about the polls being bad. One of them sits quietly over there—Phil Goff. Phil is waiting, waiting, waiting. According to Chris Trotter, he is the new Barack Obama of the Labour Party. You see, Phil has given up the barbeque tongs. He has found Chris Trotter’s cellphone number and he is on the phone every single day. Chris is responding by writing nice little letters and nice little articles day after day. Today’s Independent had yet another one.

One has to say that No. 2 on the list is a newcomer to the list in the Oscars of who is going to take over when Helen Clark gets the flick. [Interruption] No, not Michael Cullen; we will come back to him in a minute. It is Shane Jones—Shane “Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble” Jones. Last night was a real classic on TV3. There he was, on TV3, and do members know what he said? I will tell them. He called up Howard Morrison to try to give Labour’s Māori caucus a pep talk before they get annihilated. When Shane Jones was asked what they should do, he said he might get them to sing “We Are the Champions”. Five polls show Labour at about 20 points behind. The Marae DigiPoll has all the Māori seats gone from Labour, and Shane Jones wants them to sing “We Are the Champions”. What about singing Split Enz’s “Six Months in a Leaky Boat”? What about Crowded House’s “Don’t Dream it’s Over”? There are lots of songs that Labour’s Māori caucus could have sung last night, but that was it.

And No. 3 on the list who is very happy about the polls is David Cunliffe, David “Winston” Cunliffe. He says he is running the show; he is doing so quite badly, I have to say. What was fascinating yesterday was when I asked the Prime Minister about the health service in New Zealand. She would not answer the question. She has years of experience as a Minister of Health, and what that tells us is that it is sicker than it was. She would not answer the question. What has David Cunliffe done? He has sacked the entire Hawke’s Bay District Health Board because it is contracts for cronyism. That is what he has done; he has sacked the entire board. There will be many more stepping up in very short order. I am happy to take another 5 minutes if we want.

That was “slippery John”, a man with a whole series of one-liners, not one of which reached a policy conclusion—not one. The public wants to know that if the phone rings and the Prime Minister has to make a decision, the Prime Minister has a set of principles—any set of principles at all—on which he or she bases that decision. What has been reinforced in the last couple of days is that John Key has no principles. He has no basis on which to make the right decision—if he can make a decision at all. He has become the Mitt Romney of New Zealand politics, without the consistency. The smiling front runner will fade by election day and be gone and never seen again.

John Key in his heart of hearts does not care who owns our strategic assets. His party sold the Government’s shares in Auckland airport, and he wants to sell the rest into foreign ownership. Yesterday John Key was asked eight times what his position was. He responded with “ums” and “ahs” and that he “will look” into it. Finally, what is his position this morning? His position is to sell it. His party, he said, would repeal the Executive Council order, which was put in place on Monday. John Key wants to sell our strategic assets into foreign ownership.

He says the operating balance is what could be spent on tax cuts. I ask Mr Key what will happen if the operating surplus disappears between now and election day. What will happen? Will he say there should be tax increases, if that is the position? We will wait and see, I say to Mr Key. He said he wanted lower wages, then when he was caught out he wanted the reporter to be sacked, because people should not say things that are the truth. Mr Key said climate change is no big deal and he does not care about it, but now he says he is in favour of dealing with it. Then he said that the National Party never had a deadline for settling Treaty claims. He said that this morning on Television One. He should keep off the TV these days. He does not even know that National’s election policy last time was to settle claims within 5 years. Now he says the National Party never had a deadline, never had a policy on it. He says it never had a policy on strategic asset sales, and it does not have a policy on tax cuts—only a policy around operating surpluses.

This man at heart is a trader—a speculator, as Linda Clark said this morning. The man wants to do a deal, and the deal is to sell New Zealand into foreign ownership. He is a man who is not concerned about what the ordinary Kiwi believes. Does Mr Key really believe that that is what ordinary New Zealanders want—to sell our assets? Yes, he does. He says that all New Zealanders want to sell our assets into foreign ownership. Well, let us give him a policy. We put a policy in place on Monday. Stricter tests will now be available, and Ministers will have to consider the issue of local control. We will see the outcome of that when those Ministers make that decision.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are you against the deal?

That member asks me a question he knows he cannot ask me because I am not the Minister who makes that decision. Opposition members do not understand the rule of law, which is why that member, Nick Smith, was convicted of contempt of court.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling. It is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber.

It is absolutely clear that Mr Key is a slippery character who has no fixed or firm views. He opposed KiwiSaver. What is his position on it now? He opposed climate change policy. What is his position on it now? He opposed Working for Families. What is his position on it now? He opposed 4 weeks’ annual leave. What is his position on it now? He opposed increases in the minimum wage. What is his position on it now? Has he got a single, firm principle, or a single position on policy, that he is prepared to stick with—other than that he wants to be Prime Minister? He thinks he was born to be Prime Minister, for some peculiar reason.

That was a sad speech by the outgoing Minister of Finance, was it not? He has had a great life. It is sad to see him go in some ways, but good in others. I would like to know what his position on Auckland International Airport is, because I am not sure that the country knows exactly what he is saying on Auckland International Airport.

I will help Annette King join the dots on what has been going on with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and what she has been doing. Under this Government, while Cabinet was considering Peter Hausmann’s appointment to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Mr Hausmann was colluding with the chief executive of the district health board to change the tendered documents to his advantage. Let me tell members how that happened. On 10 May the chief executive instructed his staff to send a copy of the draft tendered documents to Peter Hausmann with the words “keep it confidential”. Those documents were subsequently dispatched and Mr Hausmann received them. Mr Hausmann changed the contract significantly, adding specifications that significantly advantaged his firm. He then sent them back to Chris Clarke, and the email makes it clear that the chief executive officer agreed that all those changes should be incorporated in the tendered documents. We have checked the final tendered document with the tendered document that Chris Clarke instructed be included because it had Peter Hausmann’s amendments, and it is word for word the proposals that Peter Hausmann made.

Why would a public service chief executive send an advance copy of a multimillion-dollar-contract tender document to one party 2½ months before any other organisation got a chance to look at it? Why would that happen? That is cronyism in the extreme. Why would that happen? I have asked the Minister of Health time and time again whether he thought that was ethical behaviour, whether he thought that was appropriate behaviour, or whether that was behaviour he would expect of a chief executive. Do members know what? He has never said “yes” or “no”. All he said was that he would wait until the report comes out in a couple of weeks. Well, I have to say that from what we are reading in the papers the report will be a whitewash. It will be Noel Ingram Part 2. It is so coincidental that the same Minister who stood up for days on end defending the Ingram inquiry will be forced to stand up, day after day, defending what has happened with this ministerial inquiry.

💬 Hon Bill English: Remind us where Taito Phillip Field ends up.

Well, Taito Phillip Field ends up in another jurisdiction facing charges that this Government said he had no guilt associated with—it said there was no evidence of anything.

So what do we want? Well, we want the Government members to be upfront and tell us exactly what they think about what has gone on here. Are they happy that the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was colluding with one of the tenderers to allow him to make significant changes to those tender documents to advantage his own company? That is something that New Zealanders cannot understand would be tolerated by the Government. What is even more worrying is that so many Ministers opposite knew they were inserting Mr Hausmann into this conflict of interest. We know that a whole group of Ministers met with Mr Hausmann, whom I think the Minister of Health described as a significant player in the health sector. What sort of Government allows to be appointed to the board someone who has those sorts of conflicts of interest? What sort of Government allows someone to be appointed to a district health board when it knows that person will tender for $20 million to $50 million contracts in the district health board it wants him to be appointed to? It just does not make sense. It does not make sense to New Zealanders, and that is because Annette King will not tell the country why she was so keen to appoint Peter Hausmann to this board.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We think we know why.

Well, she should come down to the House and tell us why she appointed him, because apparently she was briefed in full on this proposal before she even nominated him for the board position. That is cronyism of the worst kind.

The Leader of the Opposition, John Key, led off the Wednesday debate today. “Slippery John” they are calling him in the media, because one cannot get a straight answer from the man as to whether he supports the sale overseas of New Zealand’s strategic assets. Let us read the transcript from last night. Questioner: “Mr Key, do you support what the Labour Government did last night?” Mr Key: “Well, no, we’ve got to think very carefully about making a change.” Questioner: “So, no, you don’t support it?”. Mr Key: “Well, I mean it’s hard to understand what they mean.” Questioner: “You don’t support it then? I just want to get this clear.” Mr Key: “Well, we just need to have a look and see exactly what they’re doing.” Then it went on and on.

John Key would not give a straight answer as to whether the National Party supported the sale overseas of New Zealand’s strategic assets. Why did he not do that? He did not do that because of the advice a man called Keenan gave him, as reported in that book The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception. Mr Keenan said to John Key: “You’ve got to drop publicly unpopular policies. You’ve got to drop publicly unpopular policies, or at least public promotion of them.” He has not dropped the policy. John Key would sell this country down the road, but he will not own up to doing that before the election because he is under orders from Mr Keenan that he should not adopt publicly unpopular policies. Then Mr Keenan said: “John, you’ve got to say what makes your party look good. Get the public’s mind off what makes the party look bad and keep repeating things about the Government until people believe it.” Then there was the crowning piece of advice, and members should listen to this: “The secret of success is sincerity and conviction. Once you fake that then you’ve got it made.” That was the advice given to John Key by Mr Keenan, National’s campaign adviser. There it is in black and white, a secret email never meant to be published, but published nevertheless; a true account of what guides this National Party policy.

Mr Key is generally faithful to that advice, but every now and again the mask slips, and it slipped a couple of weeks ago did it not? We had that situation up in Northland where he was reported to have said in Kerikeri that National “would love to see wages drop.” Whoops! What! National would love to see wages drop? Then there were the excuses. Mr Key’s first excuse was: “Oh, it was just a light-hearted reference.” Well, that did not go down very well, so he changed the excuse. He said: “Actually, I was talking about Australian wages. It was Australian wages I wanted to see drop.” That had no credibility. So what did he do then? The third excuse was the best. He said that he did not say it at all. First of all he said it was light-hearted, then that he was talking about the Australians, and then he denied even saying it.

What does that remind members of? It reminds members of the man who said he wanted New Zealanders fighting in Iraq, then came out and said that he never believed that. He was on record on that one. He was not telling the truth when he made the denial, and he is not telling the truth about saying he would like to see New Zealand wages drop. We have heard this all before, and the public is aware of it. In 1990 National members in Opposition said they would not cut overtime rates, and they would not cut rates on shift work. They lied then, and they did it. They cut those wage rates, and they are not telling the truth now. They are not saying what they will do.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Tell us about your illegal spending.

Lockwood Smith should not open his mouth. That man said he would cut out student fees, and if he did not do that he would resign. He increased student fees and he never resigned. Dr Smith should not blame the students now. A couple of weeks ago he said that interest-free student loans would be opposed by National members with every bone in their bodies, and they now say that they will support it. Well, I credit students with a bit more nous than to believe another lie like those they were told in 1990. Dr Smith remembers that because he was on the platform with me and he said that time and again. Then, of course, there are the superannuitants who were told there would be no surtax, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. National increased the surtax and Bill English then cut national superannuation from 66 percent to 60 percent.

We have just heard from the happiest man in the New Zealand Labour Party, because the worse the polls get the happier Phil Goff is. He knows that even people in his own caucus and the left wing press are now saying that the only hope for that failed mob is if Phil Goff takes over before the election. Members in that caucus are very torn because there are the Clark loyalists and there is the right wing of the Labour Party coming back, and when it is getting to the stage where Phil Goff could take over we really know that the ship is sinking. I tell the House that we will see many fewer Labour members come the election, and a lot of them are going to leave well beforehand. If that lot cannot fix it after 9 years, I tell members now that they never will. They are losing the battle, and we saw that today.

The classic line in politics is that explaining is losing. In oral question No. 10 today the Minister of Health had to take a patsy question from poor old Russell Fairbrother, the broken-down former member for Napier who is now a list MP. The Minister of Health had to get up and give a lengthy explanation for the frankly criminal situation that is going on behind the scenes at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. It is amazing. The Minister of Health is no longer concerned about patient care, it is now all about political management and defending the cronies in senior management positions at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. What has gone on there is worthy of some Third World banana republic. The deal that has been done there is absolutely incredible.

Just to reiterate, Annette King was the Minister of Health. Her husband, Ray Lind, was the chief operating officer at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Against the advice of the board, the Minister appointed Peter Hausmann to the board. It then turned out that Peter Hausmann used his position as a district health board member to alter the conditions of a confidential tender document so he could bid for it, and it was a $50 million contract. It sounds like something out of the Third World. People would not believe that this could happen in New Zealand today.

What happened next? A whistleblower at the district health board said: “Hey, this is not on.” And would members believe it, the Minister of Health’s husband, who was in senior management, went to heavy this lady, told her to shut up, and she was restructured out of her job. The next thing we knew, Peter Hausmann left to run his health-care company and Ray Lind, the Minister’s husband, went off to work for him. If that is not rotten, if that is not a major problem, I do not know what is. I can tell members that that situation is spelt out, word for word, in the Herald on Sunday article last Sunday by Bill Ralston. If that article was not the absolute truth the Herald on Sunday would not have published it. Bill Ralston would not risk a lawsuit. Did we hear anything about a lawsuit? No, no lawsuit is happening at all.

We do not think the Minister should have sacked that district health board. There are heaps of district health boards around the country where the situation is far worse. At hospitals in the Waitemata District Health Board area people are lying on trolleys for 24 hours. The doctors have written a letter saying that people there cannot get the care they need because the board has not done any planning. Why does the Minister not want to intervene there? Why will he not intervene in Waitemata? The reason is that the chairman of the Waitemata District Health Board is a personal crony, a mate, of Helen Clark, and Labour members will not attack their cronies and their mates. They will not do that. But in Hawke’s Bay, the cronies are all in senior management and the board was going to be way too much of a problem.

So, in the end, this has all been about looking after and defending the cronies. The cronies are under threat in Hawke’s Bay. Annette King and her husband are under threat. So the answer is to sack the board. In Waitemata the cronies are on the board, so the answer is that they have to support the board. The Minister is not interested in the fact that the doctors have no confidence in the board at all. There is absolutely nothing that he wants to do about it. The fact is that Labour has doubled the spending on health from $6 billion to $12 billion and things are no better. It has lost the health battle. The public does not believe it on health policy any more. Health will be a key election issue. The Minister is not even pretending to try to improve the health of New Zealanders any more; he is just concerned now about political management. We have had three Ministers of Health under this Government and the theme all along has been to manage the situation, not to worry any more about what is happening in health because Labour knows it has lost on that. Labour members say they just have to shore up their defences and make sure that they look after their mates. The key mate they have to look after here, because she is severely compromised, is Annette King. She knew about this contract. She knew about it—we have the emails—and she still appointed this guy Peter Hausmann to the district health board. She was advised not to and it smells bad.

I want to remind the member who has just taken his seat what his party did in the 1990s to the New Zealand health system. That party charged people for going to public hospitals. It put cash registers at the doors of our public hospitals and thought there was nothing wrong with that. This party—a slippery party—has tried not to tell the New Zealand public that in fact it is going to lift the cap on the general practitioners’ fees this Government has put in place. If it had not been caught out, it would not have told the New Zealand public that under a National-led Government general practitioners’ fees would go up—and prescription fees would go up as well, unless, of course, we see another slippery flip-flop from the National Party desperate to gain control of the Treasury benches at any cost, regardless of the fact that its members are prepared to say anything to anyone to get there.

Is not 24 hours a long time in politics? Once again the happy “me too-ism” mask of John Key slipped, and we saw once again the cold face of the free market that lay behind it. Here is a man who is happy to sell off New Zealand to overseas interests. He is a man who has backed up what he said last year when he said that asset sales are once again on the National Government’s agenda. What happened in the last 24 hours—once we got an answer out of Mr Key, once he had stopped umming and ahing and saying “I’m not sure.”, We’ll have to look at it.”, and “We’re not sure.” What he really meant was that he had not focus-grouped it and he had not yet decided what the rest of the country thought, so he did not want to tell people what he thought because it might have been out of step. I say that the contradiction between that Opposition and this Government is stark. This Government is planning for the future of all New Zealanders and getting on with governing.

I want to talk just a little about John Key’s slip of the tongue, once again, when that mask dropped, once again, and when he said that National would love to see wages drop. He thinks that wage increases in New Zealand are driven by inflation not by productivity, so he would love to see them drop. He then said what he had said was a joke. That is a really funny joke! Then he said he was misunderstood. Then he said he did not say it. These statements all came from the one man who apparently said them, so it is entirely hard to believe that in the space of a few days he had three different recollections of what he had said. He then rang up and tried to get the journalist who reported what he said, fired. That is what New Zealanders can expect from this man—a slippery politician who will say anything to anyone in order to get a vote. His opinion is based on the last person he talked to, and we are seeing that as clear as day. When National suddenly has to release policy or when John Key is suddenly put on the spot and asked what his policy is, what his philosophy is, or what National will do, he has nothing.

He is now trying to say that he was referring to Australian wages when he said National would see wages drop. But what would a National Government have to do to make wages drop? This is very interesting. First, National could cut benefits or not adjust them for inflation, which it did last time it was in Government. It could hold the minimum wage steady and not increase it at all, which it did last time it was in Government. It could hold down public sector wages by cutting funding, which it did last time it was in Government—and has said it will do next time if it ever gets back into Government. This is an important one—it could weaken labour law. It could reduce workers’ ability to bargain for pay rises collectively and get pay rises, which it did last time it was in Government. Or it could introduce a 90-day period where any employee could be fired for any reason at all. And National has said that that is its policy—it has said that that is its policy. Then through all these public spending cuts, and through all the flow-on effects, wages would drop in real terms, just as they did last time National was in Government. John Key’s comment was not a mistake, it was not a joke, he was not being misunderstood. This is core National Party philosophy, this is what it did last time, and we have every reason to believe that it is what it will do next time if it ever gets back into Government. The difference is that National members do not want to tell people that that is what they want to do, because they know that people suffered in the 1990s.

John Key has become somewhat of a 1990s denier; he likes to say that things did not happen—that things were not National Party policy. Let us look at Iraq. John Key now says that he never supported going into Iraq, but in 2003 he said that we were missing in action. He said in the media that New Zealand was missing in action from the war in Iraq. People should make no mistake; if Labour had not won that last election, we would have young New Zealanders fighting in Iraq now as we speak. What John Key does not want New Zealanders to know, he will not say.

As my friend and colleague Moana Mackey has just told the House, this is a very, very strange time in New Zealand politics, because we have a Leader of the Opposition who will say anything to get elected. His comment about wages dropping is instructive. Let us look at the record. In February 2008 Mr Key was telling the House that National would lift the wages and conditions of New Zealanders. It sounds all very nice and cuddly, but what do we know? He told a business audience in Northland in December 2007 that National would love to see wages drop. As Moana Mackey and other speakers on this side of the House have said, it is just another case of John Key telling people what he thinks they want to hear, selecting his audience, and then tailoring the message.

But New Zealanders want the truth, and we should look at what the truth would be if National were in power and had the ability to set the industrial relations agenda. What would we have? What would we have, based on the record of that lot’s achievement in the 1990s? We would have lower wages. That is clearly the case. That lot would lower wages the moment they got their hands on the levers, and that is why Labour is determined that that should not happen. Those members reduced workers’ rights—

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: That’s a lie.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like Mr Coleman to withdraw and apologise for his comment.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: I noticed that it was all right for the Hon Phil Goff to talk about lies and people not telling the truth, so I thought that was the new standard we were adopting for this general debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. To refer to anyone as a liar is totally out of order, and it will not be tolerated. The member will desist.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked that the member withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I have made a ruling on it. The member will desist.

As I was saying before I was interrupted by that unparliamentary comment, National would not only lower wages but also reduce workers’ rights. Again, the record from the 1990s demonstrates this.

What else would National members do? As Moana Mackey said, they would freeze the minimum wage and scrap the youth minimum wage. They would oppose every measure that we, supported by the Green Party and in cooperation with Green members and others, have tried to introduce in this Parliament to ensure that workers’ rights are addressed in this country.

What else? Tradable holidays was the last policy up on the block. That would have allowed people to sell off their holidays for a few more dollars a week, and, as Moana Mackey said, it would have allowed employers to sack new workers in their first 90 days. Gee, that would be a great way to attract talent from offshore, would it not? We could guarantee people security of tenure and jobs in New Zealand, they might work for 89 days, and then they might get the sack after having moved here.

We know that John Key is an advocate of flexible labour markets, and he says that under National we should expect quite significant changes to the Employment Relations Act. He says that there was nothing wrong with the employment legislation of the 1990s, the Employment Contracts Act, which is what it was when National left office in 1999. When National’s hapless industrial relations spokesperson, Kate Wilkinson—who is actually a very nice person—gets rolled out to speak at industrial relations conferences around the country, like she was this morning at the BrightStar conference in Auckland, all she can do is talk in platitudes, because she has been instructed, just like the other members opposite, not to give detail or policies. National members know that people do not like their policies, so they will just not tell them what their policies are.

National members hope that they can make nice noises, steal a few Labour policies, and sleepwalk to victory. I tell members opposite that that will not happen. That will not happen this time, because New Zealanders will see through that ruse. They will not be fooled by being led into some sort of false sense of security. They will see through the agenda that really lies behind what members opposite want to do.

If we contrast that slippery agenda, that attempt not to give any detail, and that desire to just say to whatever audience one is talking to what it wants to hear with Labour’s record in Government, we can start to understand the good things that this country has experienced over the last 9 years. Real incomes in New Zealand have increased by 25 percent—25 percent—since 2000. The wage gap between Australia and New Zealand, which members opposite love to talk about, doubled under National in the 1990s. That gap has not widened under Labour.

Members opposite can talk down the economy as much as they like, but people who look at these figures and analyse them know that the record of the members opposite from the time that their party was in Government was when the rot set in. It is this Government that sought to fix up the problem—377,000 more jobs, record low employment at 3.4 percent, increases being made to the minimum wage eight times in 8 years, paid parental leave, 4 weeks’ annual leave, Working for Families, and fairer employment laws. It is members on this side who have the vision for prosperity and fairness in this country, not the members who sit on the other side of the House.

That was Charles Chauvel trying to cut down John Key. The problem is that the public are not listening. They like John Key. He has a huge vision for this country, he has the policies to back it up, and Kiwis are supporting him at the polls. We are all behind him over here.

This Government is responsible for bad public administration, bad political management, and bad ministerial judgment. That is no more so than in relation to what has been allowed to unfold at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. What is more, it is a scandal portrayed by cover-up, diffusion, and spin-doctoring. Today I challenge the fourth estate to look behind the spin-doctoring of this scandal and to seek the truth. This is a case where sound journalism needs to cut through the bullshit to ensure that the truth comes out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no, the member will withdraw.

I withdraw and apologise. This is a case where sound journalism needs to cut through the spin to ensure that the truth does come out. On one side there are too many inconvenient truths. Annette King did appoint an associate, against the advice of officials, to be an independent director at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. That director is involved in a conflict of interest row with the board over a $40 million contract. A whistleblower who exposed these dealings to the board was subsequently restructured out of her job. Annette King’s husband was involved as chief operating officer, and he suddenly started working for the man at the centre of the allegations. These are separate, inconvenient facts. If they were proven to be intertwined, they have huge ramifications for this Government. A lot is at stake.

There are some facts on the other side, too. A democratically elected board has been sacked. It is a board made up of quality people who are hugely experienced, and two of whom are clinicians themselves. This board was praised by Mr Hodgson in his letter of 9 July 2007, just a few months ago, when he commented: “This board and management have put tremendous effort”—that is “tremendous effort”—“into successfully managing what was a successful, a challenging 2006-07 plan.”

The other fact is that the board became aware of two contracts where one of its own—an appointed board member—appears to have colluded with management to ensure a better bite at the cherry. This led to a breakdown in the relationship between the board and the independent director, and between the board and senior management. Well, there are no surprises there. In the middle of all these facts is the Government’s murky world of bad public administration, bad political management, and bad ministerial judgment. Quite frankly, even now I do not know who is right or wrong in this whole affair.

What I do know is that this Government has gone to some fairly extreme efforts to defuse and deflect this story, to confuse the public and the media, and, generally, to ensure that it is very difficult to get to the truth of this whole story. Firstly, we were told in December that the board chair would not be appointed because the review into the conflict of interest was incomplete. The result was a day-to-day chair, no deputy, and no standing committees. In February the Minister accused the board of a breakdown in governance. No kidding! The Minister had made the situation untenable. The Minister then started making wild accusations about the board’s dysfunctional relationship with senior clinicians. Two members of the board are clinicians themselves. Apart from the two doctors, one of whom has now left for Australia, the Minister has been proven to be totally wrong.

Rick Barker continued the line of subterfuge yesterday. He accused the board of having received a vote of no confidence from clinicians. That is absolute rubbish. I have here an email from David Davidson, saying: “When this rumour arose last year I was astonished that as a board member and ex-clinician I had no knowledge of such a move. It seemed particularly pointless to pass such a resolution and then keep it secret. My inquiries confirmed that no such resolution had ever even been voted on.” How will the people of Hawke’s Bay take that subterfuge, Rick?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Minister. Secondly, the Minister sent the board a letter stating the reasons for his disapproval of the board. It is strange that that letter said nothing about the conflict of interest review or about his accusations about a dysfunctional relationship with senior clinicians. He accused the board of a poor report from the Controller and Auditor-General when, in fact, it is no worse than those of a whole heap of other boards. He accused the board of a ballooning deficit when the board is within 1 percent margin of error. He accused it of a breakdown in a relationship with himself. The Minister did not even try to form a relationship.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that you called my colleague to order during the course of his speech. I presume that was when he referred to the Hon Rick Barker simply as Rick. Is that correct?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is true.

If that is the case, I would appreciate that same consistent standard being applied when Labour members refer to the Leader of the Opposition on a first-name basis and with an adjective in front of that first name during the course of this debate. Once those two things are consistently applied, I think you will find that order will be returned to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members were called to order when that occurred.

I have no trouble keeping with that ruling, because shonky John Key is continuing to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—that word can be considered under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 to be a nickname, which is not permitted. I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw. I understood the ruling was that both the Christian name and surname of the member were to be referred to, and I did that as I began my speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not as I understood it. You used an adjective before you used a member’s name, and that is out of order.

The last speaker, Chris Tremain, was struggling to call his leader, John Key, a man of vision. John Key is such a man of vision that when we challenged Chris Tremain to tell us what that vision was he could not name what the vision of John Key actually is, because it slips and slides from day to day. It keeps slipping and sliding. No wonder the backbench MPs in the National Party cannot even name the vision that John Key represents.

As far as this side of the House can see, the vision he represents is that of someone slipping and sliding and changing his mind every other day of the week. No wonder the backbench MPs have no interest in standing up and being on record as naming one single policy. The concern they have is that the policy announced by John Key today might be quite a different one tomorrow. They do not want to put their credibility on the line by getting up and naming one policy, because for all they know that policy could be changed tomorrow.

We have seen a number of examples of that from John Key. He has flip-flopped on sending troops to Iraq. That is not just a minor issue. It is a major issue for New Zealanders, and he cannot make up his mind on it. The scary thing for New Zealanders is that if John Key can flip-flop as easily as that on major issues facing New Zealand when he is in Opposition—

💬 Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to the challenge of Sue Moroney, and I seek leave to table a published policy paper—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member can do that at the end of the member’s speech. That was a frivolous intervention.

Mr Key flip-flopped on Iraq, and it has been well documented. He had a belief to start off with, and subsequently his belief changed when he felt that public opinion was against him. This is a serious issue for New Zealanders, and if he can flip-flop that easily while in Opposition, one shudders to imagine what he could do if he ever got the chance to be in Government. In Government the pressure to change one’s mind on very serious issues is, of course, much more extreme than it ever would be in Opposition. So if he is prepared to change his mind on major and significant issues like that of Iraq while sitting in the luxury of Opposition, just imagine how bad it could be if he ever got hold of the reins of power in this country.

That is not the only issue he has flip-flopped on. He has flip-flopped on another serious issue that dominates the international scene, and that is the issue of climate change. He called it a hoax. John Key said that climate change was a hoax. Now he is a firm believer in climate change. If he can flip-flop that easily in the course of 18 months on a significant issue like climate change while he has the luxury of sitting in Opposition, goodness knows what he would flip-flop on if he ever got his hands on the reins of power in this country. That is the very thing New Zealanders will come to consider much more seriously as they come to make a decision about how to cast their votes.

But it does not stop there. Interest-free student loans, according to the National Party, would ruin this country. Interest-free student loans would be the ruination of this country. That was what National members said when they voted against interest-free student loans. But what do they say now? They know that their position on this issue makes them unelectable. Even though they are firmly against interest-free student loans, they have now decided that maybe they will support that policy. How easy is that to say when one is in Opposition? I think New Zealanders really need to contemplate that flip-flop. If National members can think one day that interest-free student loans will ruin the country but think the next day that the policy is one they can support, then New Zealanders need to contemplate what National might do if it ever gets the chance to be in Government.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: They don’t know because they won’t tell us.

They will not tell us, and I think that Chris Tremain’s speech was another fine example of that.

Chris Tremain had ample opportunity to tell us what the vision was. He stood up and said that John Key is a man of vision. What is that vision? There is silence. There was not one detail in his speech about that vision. I absolutely understand Chris Tremain’s caution. If my leader changed her mind on a day-to-day basis on issues of extreme importance to this country, I would be reluctant to get up and name what that vision might be. I would be reluctant if I thought that vision might change the very next day. So I absolutely understand Chris Tremain’s reluctance to name one detailed policy of this so-called man of vision who leads his party.

I am very fortunate, however. I am not in that position, because I can actually talk about the plan that Labour has for the future. We have that plan for the future. Major funding boosts for community organisations were announced by our Prime Minister, our leader, just 2 weeks ago, and she has not backtracked on it one iota. When Helen Clark says she will deliver increased funding to community-based organisations, she gets on and does it. She does not change her mind the next day.

I acknowledge the previous speaker. I dedicate this speech to Deborah Houston—the whistleblower of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board who started the inquiry. She is a woman the Minister should be thanking. She is a woman the Government should be sending accolades to and looking after. She is a woman who sought full protection under the Protected Disclosures Act to protect herself from the Crown. She asked, she pleaded, and look what has happened to her. She has been made redundant, and pushed out of her job, when she was doing the right thing. The Minister should be thanking her. The Minister should be talking to her and interviewing her. The Minister should have been speaking with her over the Christmas break, between various draft reports, rather than speaking to the two other people—the chief executive officer and a Government-appointed board member. The Government should be grateful to this person who tried to keep the Public Service clean, who tried to look after taxpayers’ money, who did the right thing, and who used the tools available.

I ask Government members to look at what they are doing now. I ask people to look at what this Government is doing. It is using the taxpayers’ full purse and the might of Crown Law to silence and to burn off this person whose funds could not match the Crown’s. She had to settle just so she could pay her own legal bills.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: That is simply not true.

That is absolutely true, and the truth will come out.

What needs to be in the final report? We have heard about the first draft and we have heard about the second draft. Well, what needs to be in the final report? The full story of the whistleblower should be in the final report. I think we all want the reputations and integrity of all people—from the Minister and the previous Minister down to this person—confirmed and adhered to. Let the truth come out. Let all information come out, then we will be better off and New Zealand will be better off, and we can breathe a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, in hindsight, that whistleblower as she sought protected disclosure from the chair of the board actually had to reveal herself as the whistleblower to the acting chief executive officer at the time, who was Mr Ray Lind. She had to reveal who she was to the acting chief executive officer, Mr Ray Lind—the chief executive officer was in Nelson at that time. She was made redundant, and forced to settle.

Let us make sure that the truth comes out in the full report. Let us make sure that the final report reports all the others who were made redundant. I will give the Minister notice. The Minister has used his office, taxpayers’ funds, Crown Law—the privileges of his office—to try to construct this story in his own right. Rather than defend this whistleblower, he has gone after her. I put it on notice that I will use the privilege of my office as a member of Parliament for that area to make sure all information comes into the public forum. I set that on notice.

What else needs to be in the final report? All associated documents need to be in the final report—all drafts I, II, III, IV, however many there are, so we can all see the background papers. In the final report, we must also see a list of who wanted to make representations to the various drafts, and we should also see a schedule of who actually made representations to the various drafts. We must see who those people were and the changes they advocated. If that is the truth, what is there to hide? It cannot be defamatory, if it is the truth and if it is right. What else should be in the final report? The “secret recording of conversations by a senior staff member” should be. That is absolutely outrageous. What else should be in the final report? The “secret email exchanges between the CEO and outside parties”—all of them—should be. What else should be in the final report? There should be the “damaged back-up tapes”, which, as it turns out, look like they are the smoking gun. What else should be in the final report? There should be the various forensic audits of various computers and back-up tapes. What else should be in the final report? There should be any reports of obstruction, and of the cooperation, or otherwise, of all parties to this sorry, sorry state of affairs. What should happen the day after the final report is released? The Auditor-General should step up to the plate, once all the information is on the table and having seen what has been going on, and make a judgment, for the sake of the integrity of the Public Service.

We have just heard the previous speaker bang on about final reports. I will talk about what a final report would look like if, God forbid, we did not have a Labour-led Government but a National Government leading this country. For a start, how many weeks’ holiday would we have in place under National? We would have 2 weeks’ annual leave, because that is the National Party policy. We would have no apprenticeships, because National scrapped the Apprenticeship Act. We would have privatised accident compensation, because when we came into Government we had to de-privatise accident compensation and get back a fairer system. We would have cuts to superannuation, because the previous National Government was in the process of making those. We would have means testing for care of our elderly people, because that is what the National Government brought in. We would have everything privatised, because that is the National Party’s policy and agenda.

We would have no paid parental leave whatsoever, because John Key voted against it. We would have no 20 free hours per week of early childhood education for every child in New Zealand—which is enjoyed by about 90 percent of families in this country—because John Key voted against it. We would have no interest-free student loans in this country, because John Key voted against it. We would have no capped tax credits for Working for Families, because John Key voted against it. We would have no income-related rents, and we would have no help with homeownership, because John Key voted against it. We would have fewer health and safety laws and less protection for our workers, because John Key voted against it. We would not have cheaper prescription charges and cheaper doctors’ visits, because John Key voted against it. We would not have the minimum wage increase and we would not have got rid of youth rates, because John Key voted against it. We would not have public holiday payments on public holidays and we would not have fairer labour laws, because John Key voted against it.

We would not have Māori seats, because—wait—John Key wanted to get rid of them. There is a change there! But would we have KiwiSaver? No, we would not, because John Key voted against it. We would have troops in Iraq, because John Key would have supported that. We would not be nuclear-free, because John Key thinks that is a sham. Climate change would be off the agenda, because John Key does not believe it exists. We see now a series of absolutely wishy-washy, slippery flip-flops. The John Key model is: “Do not, in any circumstances, tell anybody what we’re going to do—never, never!”. We have seen that happen—five times he managed to dodge the question of what he would do about Auckland airport. But this Government is strong enough to say that we do not want foreign control, so we are going to ensure that it does not happen in respect of New Zealand’s strategic assets.

What is John Key’s view on this issue? We do not know, because we go back to his golden rule: “Never, never tell anyone what we’re going to do.” But we did see someone break the rule; poor old Tony Ryall let something slip. I do not know what happened that day in caucus but he cannot have been there. He got the army medicine: “Never, never say what we’re going to do.”, but poor old Tony Ryall went and said: “We will not cap doctors’ fees.” My goodness! John Key immediately zoomed to the rescue and said: “No, no.” And when asked what they would do, he said: “Well, of course, we wouldn’t; on the one hand …, and on the other hand”—

💬 Jill Pettis: The market will provide!

—“the market will provide! Of course doctors will not push their fees up; they will not do that.” We have seen, time after time, that John Key never ever puts his mouth where his money is!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand there is still one slot left in the general debate and that United Future, which was originally assigned that slot, did not take up that opportunity. As there is a fellow member, a member of a Government support party in the House, I assume the House would have no difficulty in Mr Jones taking that call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dail Jones.

I want to speak generally on some of the issues that have been affecting Auckland, and in which I have been involved in recent times. I want to give some views on the developments that have taken place in Auckland, despite the increase in population that we have seen in Auckland in the last 20 years or so of about 700,000, and how Auckland has had to cope with that situation.

I commend those involved in the Northern Busway. I had the good fortune of using the Northern Busway when I was attending Auckland University for summer school. I would catch the bus from Brown’s Bay and work my way into Auckland, on the bus, to Symonds Street and catch the bus back again. It has worked very well—it costs $6.50 each way—and, especially coming back along the northern motorway, the busway was a great success, in my view. As a university student at the time—I dare say that, as a part-time student—I was a little disappointed that I did not see more fellow university students on the bus. I feel that if we are talking about the environment—and young people want to talk about the environment and suchlike—and if the bus system and the train system are ways of protecting our environment, then more young people should take advantage of what is an ever-improving bus system, as far as I am concerned, especially going to and from university on the day.

One of the things that concern me, as a resident of the North Shore, and particularly near the Albany area, is the problems that I see arising with regard to the new senior high school proposed for Albany. When I became a member of Parliament again—

💬 Simon Power: Which time?

—for the second time, I say to Mr Power—in 2002, I wrote to the Minister of Education expressing my concern about the need for more schooling in the area, and about problems at schools that were far too big. The roll of 3,000 at Rangitoto College, in my view, is excessive, and I expressed a concern about new schools. In fact, I am on the record of the House in 2005 as raising concerns, in a general question, about schools.

I am very, very disappointed and very concerned at the situation arising on the North Shore, in Albany, with this senior high school that was proposed, I think, for 2008, now for 2009, perhaps for 2010, and maybe for 2011. I believe that a lot more has to be done by the Minister and—I say, with the greatest respect—by the local member, John Key, to put more pressure on in order to get this senior high school situation resolved urgently. I believe that the site that has been chosen now is very unsatisfactory. It will be dangerous as far as traffic is concerned. It is not a very good site from the point of view of its topography, and I am very concerned that there are currently resource consent objections regarding the site that could delay the matter even further.

I ask, on behalf of the people of the North Shore area around Albany and the like, that more urgent action be taken with regard to the site. In fact, I almost feel that a different site altogether should be obtained. We could get a flatter site, a site more appropriate to a senior high school for years 11, 12, and 13 than the present site, which, I believe, will very soon have difficulties—if it ever goes ahead. That is an issue that I believe must be taken into account on the North Shore.

I must also pay tribute to the Hon Brian Donnelly, whose position I have taken. Brian has made a wonderful contribution to Parliament. I am told he is enjoying himself by a swimming pool at the present time—

💬 Simon Power: Hard to imagine!

—ha ha!—and we are all pretty envious of that life Brian will be enjoying, and we know the hard work he will be doing in his excellent role as the High Commissioner for the Cook Islands, with his ample experience in that area.

I have taken over the education spokesmanship, and as a part-time university student I am very concerned about the problems surrounding the funding of university students. In particular, I wish to remind people of New Zealand First’s longstanding policy of a universal student allowance. I think of the situation of people like me. When I was a student in the 1960s I had the benefit of support from the State. Now we are in positions of authority, and we have created a situation where students no longer have the support of the State as we used to in those good old days. New Zealand First supports a universal student allowance, and steps should be taken to ensure that students do not leave university with massive student debts. One of the reasons why people go overseas is that they are concerned about their student loans.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.