General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This week we have finally heard some policy from the National Party. What was it? National will sell Kiwibank. That is National’s one policy, alongside its policy on tax cuts, and it will sell Kiwibank to pay for them. It is irresponsible to sell the family silver to buy the groceries. If selling Kiwibank was such a good idea, why would National not tell the public first, openly and plainly? This has an eerie resemblance to the infamous response of David Lange, when he was asked why he had not told the public of New Zealand about the secret policy agenda of the then Labour Government. He answered, with extreme honesty: “They wouldn’t have liked it.” That is why Bill English was telling someone privately and not publicly. We have heard this before. This is a return to the hollow men and to the failed policies of the 1980s and 1990s, where Governments got into power by saying one thing and then doing exactly the opposite.

So what does National say now about Kiwibank? Well, members should not take my word for it; they should take the words of the esteemed political journalist John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning. He said that National has not just one policy on Kiwibank but five—all at the same time. The first policy is that “National has no plans to sell Kiwibank,”. Well, that seems clear enough; that is policy No. 1. The second policy is that “National will eventually sell Kiwibank,” which is a bit confusing. The third policy is that “National will not sell Kiwibank,”. The fourth policy is that “National is unlikely to sell Kiwibank,”. The fifth policy is that “National will not sell Kiwibank in its first term in government.” Which of those is the real policy? I do not have the faintest idea. But somebody who talked to Bill knew, and Bill said he did say it.

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

Mr English said he knew, and the policy was that National would sell Kiwibank eventually. But he should not have said those words; they were “mis-spoken”. I have heard that before—it was a “mis-speak”. The trouble is that Mr English, having admitted that he said it, faced the incredible humiliation of having Mr Key come out and say “No, no, he didn’t really say it, even though he said he did. The tapes have been doctored.” Mr English did not come out and say the tapes had been doctored; he said “I said it.” National cannot even get that story right. Mr English and Mr Key were standing together, outside the caucus room; Mr English was saying “Yeah, I’ll fall on my sword—I was an idiot; I said all that stuff.”, and then his leader went on Morning Report this morning and said “No, he didn’t. The tapes were doctored.” Why did Mr English not think about that? I cannot believe it. When Mr English thought no one was listening, he really told the truth. So in actual fact he was caught telling the truth: National will sell Kiwibank, eventually. Of course, National has to sell the assets of New Zealand to pay for its tax cuts. Where have we heard that before? Plenty of Governments in the history of this country have sold New Zealanders down the river.

Where have we heard the statement that National is “almost certainly likely” to sell Kiwibank? Where have we heard that statement before? Actually, we heard that from Mr Key. You see, National members have their lines taught to them, but they get them mixed up. Mr Key has been told that when he says something he thinks might be unpopular, he should qualify it. The words are “almost certainly likely”, so National is likely to sell Kiwibank, eventually. But when Mr Key was asked whether National would sell the Accident Compensation Corporation, he thought about how he had been taught to qualify things, and he said it was “almost certainly likely” that National would sell it.

This is a party that wants to govern New Zealand. But every time someone hears National members say something, it is either five versions of the same thing that all mean something different, or it is “almost certainly likely” that they might do something, if they ever get around to it. And people are supposed to trust them! I say to this House that it would be a piece of economic sabotage at a time of international financial uncertainty to sell the only New Zealand - owned nationwide bank we have, and National stands indicted on that.

This afternoon I asked the Government some questions about the way in which at least some officers and some individuals within Work and Income continue to abuse and harass people who come to them for assistance. Although I had been aware of ongoing issues over the years, I had hoped, perhaps naively, that after so many years of a Labour-led Government with a relatively benign approach to welfare, things would be improving in comparison with the attitudes and culture so rampant in the Department of Work and Income in the late 1990s.

However, I felt impelled to take action after I received reports last week from two different districts. The reports highlighted the fact that for some Work and Income case officers the idea of treating the people who come to them for help as customers, worthy of anything approaching the kind of respect a retailer would show a real customer, is a total nonsense. For example, a beneficiary from the Rotorua district whom I spoke of earlier, Ms Tara Marks, was told by a smirking and laughing male case officer to “fuck off”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member should know that one cannot get around the Standing Orders by quoting from other documents. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for using that profanity in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Speaker said she would come back with a ruling on this matter. I had not realised—she seemed to take a different approach from you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I am in the Chair at the moment, and I have taken this approach. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] I would comment that if the House finds this language so offensive—

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand from the point of order the member raised that the Speaker had been asked to rule on this matter. That is a bit puzzling. You have just given a ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, that I think all of the House would agree with, but do we take it from the member’s comments that before the member started her speech she gave the Speaker a copy of her speech notes with the quote, including the profanity, and was somehow led to believe there would be a ruling on whether the profanity could be used? Is that actually the case? If it is the case, we need to know whether that is a new procedure—that members can have their profanities pre-approved, just in case they are able to use them. If it was the case that a profanity had been pre-approved, then the Speaker in the Chair would need to know about that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I am not aware of that, but I have made a ruling. At this stage that ruling stands, unless it is changed. Thank you.

I just make the point in relation to this matter that this is an offensive phrase, and the House—justifiably—finds it offensive. I ask the House to consider how offensive that phrase is when it is addressed by a Work and Income case officer to someone who is at his mercy and in a very difficult situation in her life.

Although the facts of the situation in Rotorua are in dispute, it seems that the local Ministry of Social Development accepts that the case officer did make this remark. I hope the strongest possible message is sent to that office and to all case officers around the country that such language, and the underlying attitude it represents, has no place in today’s Work and Income offices, any more than it has its place here in this Parliament.

The second case of this nature involved the Gisborne office, where a woman reported a very high level of harassment and bullying from staff, to the point where she is now too frightened to go to the office. Of course, that is something she has to do on a regular basis if she is to continue to receive the benefit upon which she is dependent for survival. From Murupara comes a further report of a case manager screaming right into the face of a beneficiary whom she is supposed to be there to help. That manager is evidently still employed.

Beneficiary advocacy groups and other local people advise that cases like these are far from isolated. Not only front-line case officers but also security guards are being used to intimidate people who are already totally at the mercy of the State. The Minister for Social Development and Employment advised earlier that beneficiaries have the right to complain to the department about how they are being treated, and that she sees the number of complaints as being very low. Well, I would ask her to consider how hard it is for people who often have language and literacy problems, and who are often living in poverty and in ill health, to take complaints against what seems to them to be an all-powerful Government department. It is really worrying that in a period of low unemployment, and with fewer people on benefits overall, we are seeing a continuation of this kind of harassment. I hate to think what will happen when unemployment goes up again, as it is bound to do, and I hope the department will do everything it can to continue to work to change the culture of the 1990s, which still seems to exist among some staff.

Yes, people who are on benefits or trying to get on to them can be difficult to work with. Anyone who is struggling to survive from one end of the week to the other, who may be suffering from health problems, and who lives at the mercy of the State, tends to be stressed and finds it hard sometimes to negotiate calmly with the case officer. However, this is all the more reason that staff should be trained and competent. Work and Income should have an ethos of public service that understands and acknowledges the realities of the lives of the people with whom it works.

I call on the Government to do three things. First, the Ministry of Social Development should do everything it can to end this culture of abuse wherever and whenever it occurs. Second, skilled beneficiary advocates should be involved as a matter of course in training front-line case workers. Third, Work and Income should apologise to all those people who have been humiliated, intimidated, and harassed in some of the ways I have outlined, and others, and start again with a new ethos of respect and empowerment, rather than of intimidation and humiliation. The ministry has talked at length recently about dealing with the problems of doctors being bullied into writing forms for sickness benefits. Well, I think in all fairness the ministry should also do everything it can to train and support its staff members to cease their own bullying tactics.

Yesterday it became official that the New Zealand economy is in recession.

💬 Jill Pettis: It became official that you were white-anting your leader.

Well, that is typical of the point I am about to make. The economy is in recession, interest rates are at a record high—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: They’ve just come down—didn’t you notice?

Well, they have not, actually—has the member not noticed? That is another example. The member is so out of touch that he does not know mortgage interest rates are going up, not down. It took 15 seconds for Labour to show why it is completely irrelevant to the issues that matter. Its front-bench next leader believes mortgage rates are going down. I invite that member to go door-knocking in Mt Roskill and talk to the people who have mortgages, and to ask them what is happening to the interest rate notice for their mortgages. They are going up.

What else is happening? House values are dropping. Investment funds are closing up. We have got used to it—we have got so used to it now that we do not regard it as unusual when a brand like AXA, Guardian Trust, or AMP shuts down funds because of the risk that people will lose their money. That is happening. Business confidence is through the floor and inflation is headed for 5 percent. If it turns out—as most economists are picking—that there is no growth this year, none at all in the economy, then we could be heading for the worst recession in 20 years. Of course, it is not affecting all people equally. If one is in the provincial areas, particularly farther south, things are moving along not too badly. But if one is in the suburbs of one of our big cities and in anything to do with the construction, retail, or financial services industries, then one is in real difficulty. What will happen next? What will happen next is that the Reserve Bank’s forecast of 6 percent unemployment may come to pass—that is almost double what it is now.

What is Labour’s plan? Well, it has two plans: the big plan, which Helen Clark talked about on Agenda on Saturday and which, of course, has nothing in it; and the other plan, which is the dirty tricks plan. The dirty tricks plan involves the covert bugging of private conversations everywhere and anywhere, so that all politicians are on the record 24 hours a day; push-polling, where Labour is ringing up people with pollsters it has had for 20 years and asking questions like “Is John Key slippery?” and “Will National cut public services by $10 billion?”; taxpayer funding of its election advertisements, confirmed officially by the Electoral Commission last Friday; and, of course, its hardy annual of email theft. That is Labour’s plan.

On Sunday John Key announced National’s infrastructure plan, which was greeted by the world’s least qualified prime ministerial economist, Helen Clark, as being laughable and reckless. When asked to explain why, she said it is because National is planning to borrow some more money. The debt levels that John Key specified are the same ones about which, as recently as 2006, Dr Cullen claimed: “We are satisfied debt has reached a prudent level.” So by their own yardstick it was prudent 2 years ago, but now, apparently, it is reckless. Dr Cullen said that it was among the lowest debt levels in the developed world, and he is right about that. He also said that it is low enough that if we face a financial shock, it is not a big problem. That was at 23 percent of GDP debt—John Key specified 22 percent. So that is laughable.

The question for Labour is what its plan is, apart from dirty tricks. What is it? What are the big plans that Helen Clark talked about? Barry Soper has said that he has been told things by the Prime Minister that would be very damaging in public. What things is she saying to journalists behind closed doors that would be very damaging in public?

National members put on a show now, but they were not clapping Bill English in caucus this week. One has to be in the House to see the body language and the faces of the Opposition this week. They were very arrogant and cocky last week, but now that has changed with this simple headline on the front page of the New Zealand Herald—there it is, a picture of Bill English and the words “Caught out”. That is the truth; Mr English was caught out. He talks about plans and not having plans—we now know what the plans are, because Bill English, for the first time, put it on record that National intends to sell Kiwibank.

Bill English talks about dirty tricks, secret recordings, and stolen emails. What is he complaining about? He is complaining about the fact that he was caught out saying one thing to his National Party supporters, when his party was saying something quite different to the public—telling the truth to the party, but not telling the truth to the New Zealand public, I say to Mr English. Kiwibank has 600,000 customers. They made the decision to put their money into a bank that was New Zealand - owned and controlled, and they will be appalled at the admission that Bill English made.

I am not condemning Bill English, because he was telling the truth. The people I am condemning are the people on the National Party benches who time and again go out in public and do not tell the truth about what they intend to do. There is Dr Lockwood Smith. He said he would swallow the dead rat of accepting popular Labour policies before the election, but that after the election the National members would change that and do what they really want to do. We know Dr Smith is telling the truth, because Dr Smith stood on an election platform beside me in 1990 and said he would abolish student fees. He then signed a pledge at Lincoln University, saying he would resign if he did not. Do members know what that dishonest member did? National doubled the fees, yet he did not resign. That is a lesson in terms of what we can expect from the National Party—saying one thing in Opposition before an election, and doing exactly the opposite afterwards.

We know now from those tapes, where National MPs went off the Crosby/Textor script, that those National members admitted to what they really want to do. We know that the National Party intends to sell Kiwibank. It does not have the courage of its convictions to tell the public that before the election, but now the public knows that.

Then there is John Key, who says there will be no changes to Working for Families. But what did Bill English say? He said National cannot say anything now, but it will have “a bit of a sort out” after the election—it will do it then. There are 370,000 New Zealanders who benefit from Working for Families, and who know that their payments will be put at risk because Bill English calls the shots, not John Key. There was the derogatory comment made by Bill English that John Key was simply the nice face, the man who bounced from cloud to cloud while Bill English did the real work. Well, we know it is Bill English who calls the shots, and we know that Bill English was the man who cut national superannuation in 1998. We know that Bill English is also the man who, in the last couple of years, has said superannuitants are being treated too generously, and so too are schools in low-income communities. That is what Bill English said; it is on record. The member knows that is what he said, and the member knows that a Tory party in Opposition will pretend to be something that a Tory Government has never been after it has been elected to power.

New Zealanders know they cannot trust the National Party, which says something to its own supporters in private, but says something different in public in order to give a public spin that the party is what it is not. So we have the paranoia that the National Party conference has been infiltrated, and that its emails have been stolen. What we do not have from National is the honesty to admit that what National members say to each other about what they are going to do is quite different from what they tell the public. The public will not put their situation at risk.

It has been a wee while since we have seen a vein-popper speech from Phil Goff. But we know that is just a bit of an audition for the Labour leadership, post-election. That is all that is. Of course, the saddest thing for him is there are very few of his colleagues here to watch him.

This week Treasury has told the nation that we are officially in recession. So the difficulties that so many in our economy have been feeling for months now are finally acknowledged by Treasury. Treasury has finally caught up. When we have that acknowledgment given by Treasury, we would think the Government of the day might come into the House and have something to say about how it might guide the nation through this difficult period. But, no, in the House today, the Labour Party asked itself questions that were designed to embarrass the Opposition. This is an extraordinary thing. Normally the Opposition asks questions to embarrass the Government, but the Government has slotted into this pre-election sort of role. So we had a question relating to Mr English and the time when he was Treasurer, prior to 1999. We had a question about justice, relating to sentencing prior to 1999. We had a question from Dr Ashraf Choudhary to Lockwood Smith, talking about pre-1999—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Pre-1990!

In fact, pre-1990, my colleague reminds me. Labour members went all the way back those 18 years. Then the final such question was to the Minister of Justice and once again it went back to pre-1999.

So what we can see is a party totally bereft of ideas, and a Prime Minister who went on Agenda last Sunday and talked about the big plan. But the big plan has nothing in it; it is just a big plan. There is nothing in it. Then Labour members come into the House this week, having decided in caucus: “We’ll simply scare the voters back to us.” That is their plan: scaring voters back. They have said: “We’ll fight the 1999 campaign.” They have also determined that if they cannot get hold of the voter by fair means, then use foul. One thing that is an absolute fact is that much of the support that appears to be there for the National Party at the moment is given to John Key because people trust him. Labour has used a polling firm called UMR Research for years, and UMR has done the work, and people responded to its poll and said: “We trust Bill English.”—sorry, “We trust John Key.”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Ha, ha!

What is wrong with that? Of course they trust Bill English. And they have said: “We trust John Key.”

Labour members have said: “We’ve got to break that up.” So, last weekend, the Labour Party sent some hopeless little scrotes into our conference, all geared up with the recording gear to try to get some mix and match stuff for the dirty tactics the Labour Party has applied this particular week.

We might ask ourselves what sort of person actually gets into that sort of clandestine activity. Why could the Labour Party not gear itself up with some secret recording gear, and go to a business around this country and ask why life is so tough? Why does the Labour Party not go to the households that are struggling to pay the mortgage, and find out how life is so tough? Why does Labour not go to the households where people are struggling to put food on the table and pay school costs, then come back with all that information and come up with something to put in that big plan?

Last weekend, while the Labour Party was putting together its campaign by infiltrating a conference and starting its dirty-tricks campaign, John Key outlined 10 points for lifting the stakes in this nation. If anyone asks who is focused on the future of this country, the simple answer is that it is National, it is not—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member but I am getting to the stage where I cannot hear him. I refer members on my right to Speakers’ rulings 57/3.

I will start again, with your permission, Mr Assistant Speaker. How long do I have?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Half a minute.

That is enough time to reiterate the point that the Labour Party started this dirty-tricks campaign, and if its members over there laugh and say that it is not them, why is the Prime Minister not able to say that she disagrees with this sort of tactic? Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to say that Labour disagrees with that sort of tactic? What we get from Helen Clark is shiftiness and comments like: “Well, it wasn’t us.” Well, they would say that. She will not go that step further and say that it is dirty tactics, because that is what it is.

Today we move from Alice in Wonderland to The Wizard of Id, taken, appropriately, from the Dominion Post. One can see the town crier saying “6 o’clock, and time for lies, distortions, and half-truths”. The bystander says “What happened to the news?”, and the town crier says “This is the news”. For once, a newspaper is right, but it is not in the news columns. Fair-minded New Zealanders are outraged and appalled at the concerted effort by the mainstream media to usurp the democratic process. The media certainly have a part to play in informing the public, but seldom has the fourth estate sunk to such depths as it has in the past few weeks. We have seen the least accountable group in society—the media—take upon itself the combined roles of police, judge, jury, and Parliament, as well as that of the electorate. Chris Trotter, who is not a New Zealand First supporter, has put his finger on the heart of the matter—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just tell us where the money went.

—the member should take his Valium—and I quote: “Their purpose is not to see him punished for past wrongs (the time for prosecuting any such breaches of the Electoral Act has long since expired). No, what Mr Peters’ enemies want to make sure of in the here and now is that no one steps forward to fund his 2008 campaign. They want to drive him and his party out of Parliament. That is the real story about Winston Peters and New Zealand First.” In other words, the hidden purpose of the onslaught on New Zealand First is to undermine our democracy. They are trying to put us away in the vain hope that a certain political party can govern on its own after the election. It is a certain political party with a hidden agenda that keeps popping up out of the shadows; a certain political party that hides behind a yellow coat when it comes to question time.

The sheer effrontery and hypocrisy of my accusers is breathtaking. We all know that in this House, on display over the past 24 years, have been some of the best political parties that big business can buy. Do members remember 1996, when ACT got nearly $3 million through a secret trust? Look what they have ended up with for $3 million. It was no bargain. They could have done better down at the Warehouse or The $2 Shop.

I want to make something clear about the news that has been published about Bob Jones. Only one account of about a dozen published or broadcast was the truth of this matter. The New Zealand Herald on 29 July, which was 5 days late, of course, published from Professor Malcolm Wright, who was the only independent witness in the room, the facts—and he confirmed them—which are that I was not in the room at the time; second, I was angry upon my return when I found this matter had been raised; third, I was not present when a cheque was written; and, fourth, advice to me confirms that any donation intended for New Zealand First from any source reached New Zealand First in compliance with electoral law at the time.

Those are the facts, not the spurious nonsense that I am putting up with from certain journalists in this country who will not share the so-called devastating information with even one other colleague. Kitchin will not even provide the cheque. Audrey Young will not even give over the emails—no, she expects us to believe her. I gave her a chance to look at our books. She would not take me on, and neither would her editor, because she would have to resign when it was over.

Chris Trotter confirmed something we had been told earlier from different sources. All of them are very reliable—in two cases, right from the horse’s mouth. We were told New Zealand First was going to be taken out of this election; that big money was being offered for “any dirt on Winston Peters”. The facts do not matter in this smear campaign of innuendo; it will keep going until the election. They want us gone because we oppose foreign ownership. They want us gone because we do not want the lifeblood of New Zealand being sucked dry by leeches overseas. They want us gone because we want the elderly to have a pension they can live on. It is true, just as the words from The Wizard of Id are true: at 6 o’clock, it’s time for the lies, the distortions, and half-truths—except that in the Land of the Long White Cloud they go round the clock.

In my electorate we have just had the biggest closure, and loss of jobs, in the history of the region of Nelson with 320 people losing their jobs; and we have the Reserve Bank expecting that New Zealand unemployment is headed for 6 percent. If we look at the cost of living increases that our families are struggling with, we have the highest increase in food costs that New Zealanders have seen for more than 20 years. We have thousands of New Zealanders whose nest egg of money is in finance companies like AMP and Guardian Trust—organisations they thought they could trust—hearing they have lost their money. We have a record number—80,000—of New Zealanders who are leaving for countries overseas, and departing this land. We have the highest interest rates in 15 years, and what is the Government saying? Government members have absolutely no response to those issues facing ordinary New Zealanders, other than their own exercise in dirty tricks. Labour has so misgoverned this country that its only hope of electoral survival is to use scare tactics and dirty tricks in this election campaign.

At the weekend National set out a 10-point plan, a blueprint, as to where to take New Zealand forward. It is an ongoing programme of reducing taxes, bringing some discipline into Government spending, reforming the Resource Management Act, addressing the issue of educational standards, growing the amount that we pay in terms of superannuation, holding the referendum on MMP that the public long thought there would be, and launching an attack on gangs and on P. Those are the issues that New Zealanders are concerned about. Then what do we have from Labour? We have the exercise in dirty tricks and New Zealand being taken down a very negative path in terms of politics and elections. Firstly, we had Labour stealing $800,000 of public money to steal the 2005 general election.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you heard what the member said, and you should take action.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, I did not hear what the member said. I was distracted at the time. But if the member has said something to which offence has been taken, then the member should desist and withdraw.

I simply said what the Auditor-General had said, and that was that Labour stole $800,000—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the Auditor-General did not do that; and the member knows that he cannot make allegations like that in the House. The member will desist.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please be seated. The member on my left knows that when there is a point of order on the floor there is silence. The member has been here a long time and he should know better.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You required the member to withdraw. He then repeated the assertion. I ask that you ask him to withdraw and apologise now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did ask the member to withdraw, so I would appreciate it if he would do so.

I withdraw and apologise. What happened is that Labour took $800,000 of public money, wrongfully and unlawfully, and then passed a law to make that action lawful.

Then we have the sneaky, latest dirty tricks of the Labour Party at the National Party conference. I want to tell members what happened to me. At the cocktail function on Friday night a guy, who purported to be a Young Nat, approached me. He actually looked surprisingly like a Young Labour youth and he kept asking and asking me what National’s view was on nuclear power. He pretended he was a big fan of nuclear power. I reflect on the events that have occurred since and think it was just the Labour Party plant who was attempting to entrap. What is really interesting is whether that is where New Zealand politics have got to. Is that where Labour wants to take us? Why is it that no members in the Labour Party can bring themselves to say that it is wrong to sneak around party conferences under false pretences, illegally taping private conversations? I say that is wrong; it shows a decline of political standards in New Zealand.

We should be able to have good, open debate in our conferences without sneaky members of the Labour Party running around with tape-recorders trying to catch people out and to entrap them. When we see that behaviour alongside the Electoral Finance Act, when we see that behaviour alongside the rorts that Labour is taking on the public purse for the election campaign, this latest dirty trick just shows us the desperation on the Government benches. I challenge members opposite simply to start focusing on the job losses that ordinary New Zealanders have, on the huge increase in food prices, and on the record interest rates.

Articles 8 and 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child include this wording: “State parties”—New Zealand is one of those State parties—“undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law, without unlawful interference.” They also state that State parties “shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, other members of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family”.

Currently in New Zealand a court can recommend that a DNA test be carried out only when there is a question about the identity of a child’s father. If a male is named as a child’s father on a birth certificate and he is unconvinced of that fact, there is no way that that male can take advantage of DNA technology to confirm whether his suspicion is well founded, without the permission of the mother who named him. In 2005 the Law Commission published report 88, titled New Issues in Legal Parenthood. The recommendations in that report are wide ranging, but one of the most straightforward is recommendation 4: “The government should ensure accessible, efficient, accurate and ethical DNA parentage testing services are available in New Zealand”. The report lists four things that are needed: developing standards and accreditation for laboratories, developing a legislative framework, informing the public about testing options, and implementing the testing options.

How urgently needed is that provision? Well, this week a report was released from the United Kingdom, where DNA testing for parentage has been available and monitored since 1998. Last year nearly one in five paternity claims handled by its Child Support Agency resulted in the revelation that the mother had either deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father. The 2004-05 financial review of our Inland Revenue Department, reported by our Finance and Expenditure Committee, included in its report to Parliament this comment: “We … raised with the commissioner the possibility of using DNA testing to establish the paternity of the many thousands of New Zealand children whose birth certificates we understand have no father’s name recorded. The commissioner said that, while it was not the role of the department to run a DNA testing regime to determine paternity, Inland Revenue would take an interest in any law change that saw DNA testing used more frequently for this purpose.”

In March 2006 Ruth Berry reported in the New Zealand Herald that the Government was considering making provision for enforceable court-ordered DNA tests, and here we are, in August 2008, no closer to a just outcome, except for the fact that I have a bill in my name now on the Order Paper, but that bill is unlikely to see the light of day before the election. I accept that the Attorney-General has signalled that my bill may need to have some strengthening in order to determine, for instance, whether a child could instigate at the court the call to determine who his or her father is, if that is possible. United Future supports any attempt to strengthen what we have included in the member’s bill in my name.

We know that our child support system in New Zealand has a large number of people who have, for various reasons, absconded from their responsibility to make payment—as the National Party has been pointing out regularly during question time. But I would suggest that included in that number is a large number of fathers who have remained unconvinced to this day that they are actually the father of a child, despite their having been named on the child’s birth certificate. It currently seems a huge injustice that those fathers have no way to clarify that situation in court.

The work on this issue has been done very conscientiously by the Law Commission. It has made a wide-ranging list of suggestions for the Government to consider. Those suggestions have been around for a very long time, and if we shelve the more complicated matters around new birth technologies and the donor status of fathers, this issue on its own seems to be a very straightforward one. We have the technology. I have been led to believe that there are accredited laboratories in New Zealand currently that would be well able to legally perform these tests and supply the court with robust information that would be able to be used for legal purposes. Therefore, all that remains now is for the Government to take action. I have offered my bill to the Minister for Courts on two occasions. Once was during the consideration of the births, deaths, and marriages bill, because there was an opportunity for this issue to be included in that legislation.

Today we saw the Crosby/Textor-ised version of the National Party, did we not? But at the weekend we actually saw the natural National Party. We saw what those members really believe in, and was it not revealing? But today we saw the Crosby/Textor-ised version of the National Party. What was it? National members think that the New Zealand public is foolish enough to be distracted from the real issues by their coming out with the Crosby/Textor approach of talking about dirty tricks. That is what Crosby/Textor has told them to say. They think it will distract the New Zealand public from the real issues, which were displayed out there for everyone to see at the National Party conference during the weekend. I would invite National members to have a conference every week, because they always make a complete hash of it.

I think New Zealand voters have learnt a lot over the course of the weekend. They have learnt it not because National members have been prepared to get out and debate what they really, truly believe in; they have learnt it because they found out about private discussions that were held behind closed doors. National members do not want New Zealand voters to know what National truly believes in. If National members truly believe that they have the best plan for New Zealand and that their ideas are the best, I ask why they do not put them up for public discussion. Why do they keep their true views and values for private discussions behind closed doors? The election should be about a contest of ideas, and if we are to have a true contest of ideas, then National members should be up front and put what they truly believe in out for public debate. Let us bring it on. Let us have a debate about who really has the best ideas for this country. But, no, those members pretend that what they truly believe in is not what they want to do.

So let us look at what those members genuinely believe in. On the issue of Working for Families, what did they say before they got Crosby/Textor-ised? Well, in May 2005, John Key said about Working for Families: “The next National government will redesign this complex, bureaucratic and costly welfare monster,”. That is what he said in his natural state—that is what John Key truly believes.

💬 John Hayes: This is a very well-researched speech.

I say to the member that this is his leader, so he should listen up. John Key stated, in May 2005: “Much further down the track, though, I actually want to go and have a really good look at Working for Families and the whole structure of welfare in New Zealand.”

💬 John Hayes: No, definitely got that quote wrong.

That is a direct quote from John Key. That is what he said before he was Crosby/Textor-ised. Of course, after he was Crosby/Textor-ised he came out and said that National wants it, too, that it will keep Working for Families. But that is just Crosby/Textor speaking; that is not the true heart of the National Party.

What did Bill English have to say about Working for Families? Well, on the weekend it was very revealing, because Bill English said about Working for Families: “So later on, we’ll have to have a bit of a sort out. Yeah, we’ve gotta do something, but we can’t do it now.” Why is he not prepared to stand up and debate that issue in public? I ask why he does not tell us what his view—his genuinely held belief—is on the Working for Families package, so that we can actually engage in a proper, democratic debate and we can have a proper contest of ideas when the election campaign comes on.

What about superannuation? What have National members said about superannuation? Their view is just as slippery. Before they were Crosby/Textor-ised on this one, John Key stated: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the single biggest way to reduce that liability”—he is talking about superannuation—“is to raise the age of eligibility.” That is what John Key said in November 2003. In August 2004 John Key said on superannuation—again, before he was Crosby/Textor-ised—“there is likely to be a modest increase in the age of eligibility.” That was what John Key said in 2004. What about what Bill English had to say about superannuation? Well, before he was Crosby/Textor-ised, he stated that it was too generous. That is what Bill English had to say about superannuation, but what are National members saying about it now? John Key said, after he had been Crosby/Textor-ised, that he would resign if there were any changes to superannuation. That is what he said, because Crosby/Textor told him to say it. But that is not what he truly believes—we heard what he truly believes earlier on in the equation.

Lockwood Smith seems pretty honest, but have members noticed that he is always honest behind closed doors? Lockwood Smith gave us the “gone before lunchtime” comment about the nuclear-free policy. “Gone before lunchtime”—that was in a discussion behind closed doors, as well. Lockwood Smith also reminded us that many members of the National Party caucus do not believe in climate change.

If there is one person left in the country who thinks we should not have a referendum on MMP, then I invite him or her to consider that speech from the member Sue Moroney. For goodness’ sake! We need a referendum in order to have some good members come in for the Labour Party, because that member certainly is not good.

Unfortunately, this country is in recession. But have we heard a scrap on that today from Labour members? Have we heard even a word about what their plans are to do anything about it? No! What we have heard all afternoon are personal attacks on members of the Opposition front bench; personal attacks on John Key, personal attacks on Bill English, personal attacks on members of Parliament on this side of the House. Members opposite have been using words like “Crosby/Textor”, “slippery”, and whatever else Mike Williams’ focus groups have told them to say.

Last weekend John Key was outlining a 10-point plan to get this economy going. He was looking at having a 10-point plan to reverse the trend of 80,000 people leaving this country every year; a 10-point plan of aspiration, of moving forward, and of not looking back 40 or 50 years and whinging and moaning; a 10-point plan with which we can move forward and deal with the things that people care about. I have news for Labour members: people around the country, in Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin, do not care about those members’ personal attacks. What they really care about is having the ability to pay the mortgage, to get a great education for their children, and to stay in this country, which is the country of their birth and the country they love. All we get from Labour is a group of extremely coarse-voiced women screaming out at members on this side of the House, and, frankly, they could all do with some elocution lessons. All those members have done is engage in dirty tricks.

During the weekend we saw the Labour Party flunkeys who work on The Standard, the weblog that Labour has—which is paid for with taxpayers’ money, because the people who work on it are employed by the Labour Party and Parliamentary Service—secretly recording personal conversations while making out that they were Young Nationals. They were doing the dirty work for Helen Clark. Helen Clark has been asked to front up and condemn that behaviour. Has she? No, she has not, because they were doing the job that Labour wants them to do. That is what they were doing. They have been engaged in covert bugging, and they have been engaged in push-polling, which means ringing people and asking “Do you think John Key is slippery?”, and if people say in reply “Oh well, um, I—”, they are recorded as saying yes.

Labour has been engaged in dirty rorts of the pledge-card type. Instead of having the pledge card rort this year, we now have the great brochure rort. It is the same rort, but just bigger. That is Labour. It has been involved in email thefts. It has received stolen emails and used them for its own advantage. It has destroyed people’s reputations. Look what Helen Clark did to Peter Doone. There were secret little conversations with the media—“I’ve got dirt on him.” The Prime Minister of our country did that. Labour people have gone through rubbish bins. They went through John Key’s rubbish bin before the last election, trying to find the tax package. That is what they will do; that is what they will stoop to.

Do members remember what they did in the last week before the election? They sent out a letter under the names of David Benson-Pope and Pete Hodgson to all the State tenants in the country, telling them that National was going to sell their State houses out from under them. It was a dirty, filthy little lie of the kind that we expect from the people who signed that letter. That is what they did, and they did it to the most vulnerable people in this country, just to scare them. We cannot trust the Labour Party. Its tactics at this election will be the dirtiest, filthiest tactics that this country has ever seen, and, frankly, by Labour’s standards, that is saying something.

This is all at a time when inflation is heading to 5 percent, and we are moving towards the worst recession we have seen for 20 years. This Government has no answers. Sickness beneficiary and invalids beneficiary numbers now are at a record level—132,000 people. That is what we have from this Government, and what can its members say? All Labour can do is get its flunkeys over there to stand up and give little quotes that the Labour research unit people—all of whom probably work for The Standard, as well—give them about attacking John Key, attacking his credibility. John Key is a credible person. John Key is an extremely credible person, unlike any member on that side of the House. Labour has those harridans over there scream and carry on, screeching and abusing everybody, but there is not one word from them about policy. I have this question for them: when is the election? Why is Helen Clark not fronting up on that issue?

One of the fascinating things about politics and what happens in Parliament is not always so much what is said but the body language. When Bill English was up on his pins this afternoon, the body language of those National MPs who were sitting there was fascinating. They looked embarrassed. They looked like they had been caught out.

Mark Antony was not the only politician who betrayed his leader. Bill English is on record as saying “I’m a stayer, he’s a sprinter. I grind away …”. Bill English is grinding away, all right. He is grinding his teeth in resentment because John Key has the job that Bill English wants. Bill English is envious of the position that John Key holds. John Key has Bill English’s job. It is clear to anyone who has studied politics and is aware of the egos that exist around this place—this place is full of egos; we all know that, and if he were honest he would admit it—that Bill English’s ego is seriously bruised. He is a bitter and resentful man.

I suggest that there is more to come. There are more revelations to come out about the National Party conference in the weekend. Who will be next? Who will be the next to be busted? When will we learn the inside job? When will we learn who is the author of all of these revelations? National is not a happy little party over there, because its members’ feet are on sand. Their foundations are built on sand. Mr Brownlee’s very words this afternoon were if one can’t get it by fair means, try foul. I thought that was absolutely illuminating. There is more to come.

Crosby/Textor is having a huge influence on those Tories over there. I suggest that they are incredibly confused about what they are allowed and not allowed to say. Last year John Key spoke to an audience of National supporters in Christchurch. He said that they would have to get used to hearing him saying things that they would not like. But he told them to hold their nerve. He said he would have to say some things just to get elected, because to say what he really wanted to do would mean that he would not get elected, and that National would not get elected. He said that National supporters were just to hold their nerve until the election.

Then in the weekend we saw Lockwood Smith being caught out on his real agenda, as well. Lockwood Smith has been here for years. He is not a boy, in political terms—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Really?

That was a slip. He is somebody who has been here for a very, very long time. Lockwood Smith needs to be like the secret squirrel in the cartoon in my local paper this morning and come out of the closet and reveal National’s real agenda to sell Kiwibank and to get rid of Working for Families.

It is not only Lockwood Smith who is intimating things like that. Also in my local paper this morning were two comments from Simon Power, who knows how to articulate a thing or two. Twice in Simon Power’s column he expressed concern about Working for Families. He said firstly: “Though National has long been concerned about just how far up the income scale Working for Families stretches,”, and in his final paragraph he said: “Though we continue to hold some concerns about the system.” Why is a senior front-bench person who is fourth in ranking expressing concern about Working for Families twice in one column, if National is not going to do something about it? Of course National will cut back Working for Families, and here is a senior National Party MP telling us that it will. National is a party that aspires to be in Government, and it simply cannot be trusted.

The only thing I can say about that speech is that if I was in the habit of wearing make-up, and I am pleased to assure the House that I am not—I am not Chris Carter; I am John Carter—it would have been stripped off.

Over the last 3 years members of the National caucus, under the leadership of John Key, have gone round the country listening to, talking to, and discussing with the public of this nation their aspirations, their needs, and their desires. We have been formulating policy over the last 3 years, and over the last weekend John Key, our leader, announced 10 things that the next National Government will achieve under his leadership. It was a good, positive conference. We all felt proud to belong to, and be part of, the National Party.

This caucus will continue to be proud to be part of the National Party. We will be proud to be led by John Key because of the positive things that he and we have to offer this country and its people. For example, he spoke at great length about the need for development in infrastructure. This Government has failed this country. It has done little to get on top of the backlog of infrastructure in this country.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Ha, ha!

The Minister of Finance might laugh, but why does it take him so long to drive through Auckland? He knows that he and his Government have failed this country, in Auckland and in other areas, because they have not invested in infrastructure in the way that it needs to be invested in. The incoming National Government will certainly address those sorts of issues, and I am proud to say that National members will be part of this country surging ahead as we make inroads into the infrastructure deficit in this country.

The difference between this party—whose members are proud to stand up and say they are the National Party and they will represent the people of this country—and that lot over there is that they have failed this nation. Not only have they failed this nation but they have got to the stage where they are absolutely desperate to hang on to power. One can smell the dying corpse of the Labour-led Government. Let me tell members that I know that stink, I know that smell, and I know how it stains, because I was there in 1999. No matter where one turns or where one looks, and no matter how confident one pretends to be in saying that things are going to be all right, there is always that smell. It is like the smell one finds when one lifts up one’s arm after one has been haymaking; it is always there and one cannot get it out of one’s nostrils. Labour members cannot get the smell out of their nostrils.

So what are they doing? They are turning to the dirty tricks. Labour members are right into the dirty tricks. They are into it donkey deep, bugging speeches at the National Party conference so that they can then go to the media and say: “Look what we’ve found! We’ve found this extraordinary thing that will be the downfall of the National Party. The public will rail against it, and votes will surge back to the Labour Party.” Well, I tell those members to forget it. This country hates dirty tricks. It is not interested in dirty tricks. The public is not interested in things like Labour getting a polling company to start push-polling. They do not like the Americanisation of our politics. They do not like the way in which this Labour Government is using dirty tactics to try to get support from them. The public are not interested in that sort of stuff. They do not like people asking them whether they think John Key is this, and whether they think John Key is that.

What the public are actually interested in is hearing about positive policies. They do not want to know about a Government that is propped up by the New Zealand First Party, whose leader says to the Prime Minister: “Oh no, it’s all OK.”, and the Prime Minister says: “Oh, OK then. That’s good as gold. Don’t explain any more; I’ll just accept that.” Well, of course, somebody who signed a painting, and said she did not, would accept that sort of thing. The people remember the issue around the pledge card. This Government will never get away from that smell. It is like pulling off that old dirty sock every time one has been in the cowshed. This Government has that stink about it, does it not? The people remember that sort of stuff. They understand that one cannot get away from the dirt and the stink.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.