General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I stand today because, to paraphrase the words of Hamlet, something is rotten in the overseas banks in our country. We have now had some very serious cases of tax avoidance in New Zealand. Two of the largest banks in New Zealand have been convicted of massive tax-avoidance, on a scale that is seldom seen in our country. These are giant tax-avoidance cases, which the High Court of New Zealand has ruled on.

The most recent case involves no less than the Government’s banker, Westpac. According to the High Court of New Zealand, Westpac now owes nearly $1 billion in taxes and interest payments to the people of our country. It has been found that Westpac avoided tax of over half a billion dollars. When we take into account interest payments on top of that, we see that Westpac owes nearly $1 billion. In the words of Justice Harrison, who was the High Court judge in this case: “I have rejected Westpac’s primary arguments on all contested issues.” Justice Harrison ruled that the four transactions in dispute were created solely for the purpose of tax avoidance.

It is extraordinary that the Government’s banker has just been convicted by the High Court of New Zealand of putting together a series of transactions that were created, according to Justice Harrison, solely for the purpose of tax avoidance. If we read the judgment, we see that Westpac was able to decide what rate of tax it would pay in New Zealand. When we look at it from the point of view of the ordinary taxpayer, who thinks that we have to follow the rules and pay our tax—because we all know that paying tax is the price we pay to live in a civilised society, and all businesses in New Zealand know that paying tax is what they do because they are good corporate citizens—we see that it is extraordinary that Westpac was able to decide what rate of tax it would pay.

According to the judge, not only were the arrangements unlawful but the four transactions tested in the case were “tax avoidance arrangements entered into for a purpose of avoiding tax;”. Anyone who has followed this case will be amazed at the extent Westpac went to in order to have this series of structured finance arrangements—very, very complicated structured finance arrangements—in order to, in Justice Harrison’s words, simply “avoid paying tax”. That was the only purpose of those arrangements.

It is also quite sad that one of the people involved—in fact, he was one of the key advisers to Westpac in this case—was no less than John Shewan, who is now chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of our most important accounting and advisory firms. John Shewan, according to the judgment, advised Westpac to make tax payments as low as 6 percent—most taxpayers would be surprised by such advice—but no lower. That is in the context of New Zealand’s company tax rate being 30 percent. Westpac was advised by one of the most senior tax lawyers in our country to have a tax rate of 6 percent, but no lower. Justice Harrison wrote in his judgment: “The bank”—that is, Westpac—“was anxious not to reduce it unduly because of its reputational effect; it wanted to appear as a good corporate citizen paying a responsible level of tax. For that reason, Westpac’s chief executive officer imposed a minimum ETR for the Westpac group of 25% in 1997. All these transactions took that factor into account. However, management progressively allowed the ETR to fall, first to around 20% in about May 2000 and then to the ‘high teens’.” The Government’s banker is organising its tax affairs in order to reduce its corporate tax rate to under 20 percent. It is an extraordinary turn of events. What is even more extraordinary is that one of Westpac’s key advisers, John Shewan from PricewaterhouseCoopers, is now on the Government’s Tax Working Group.

💬 Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting. Can I ask for an assurance, via you, Mr Speaker, that the matters the member is addressing are not subject to an appeal before the court, because there are very serious matters here. I am concerned that the member is straying very, very close, particularly given rulings around sub judice matters that came before the House recently. I suggest that it would be a comfort to the House if that assurance is given by the member raising those issues.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I was listening very carefully to the member speaking, because obviously this is a sensitive matter. We heard from the Minister that an appeal has not yet been lodged. I think the member speaking has been quite careful. He has quoted from the judgment, as I heard him, and referred to the matters contained in it. I have not heard any outlandish allegations being made that could perhaps be considered irresponsible. I think the member has been handling what is, to him, a serious matter in a pretty responsible way. As I understand it, the matter is not at this moment sub judice.

We have to say to the taxpayers of New Zealand that it is unacceptable that the Government’s banker has been convicted in the High Court of illegal tax-avoidance to the tune of over half a billion dollars. What would ordinary taxpayers say to that situation? I call on Westpac and all those who are involved in this, and I say that it is time for it to clean up its act, and it is time to do the right thing by the taxpayers of New Zealand, because they expect Westpac to be a good corporate citizen, especially in its role as the Government’s banker.

I join with most New Zealanders in congratulating the Prime Minister on his leadership in tackling the scourge of our communities, P or methamphetamine. No member of Parliament can fail to be touched by the anguish of families seeking to find help for their loved ones who have become addicted to this evil drug. No one can fail to be moved by the stories of parents and grandparents, and the anguish they feel in trying to get care for their children, their husbands, their wives, or their grandchildren who have become addicted to this drug.

This scourge has started to wash across our communities in the last 10 years. Time after time, members of Parliament have risen and railed against the scourge of P and joined with communities in their anger about P, and for too long previous Governments did nothing. Previous Governments did nothing effective and nothing that would deal with this scourge on our communities until this Prime Minister put together an action plan that would deal with this drug, not only in terms of the availability of precursors, but also customs control in order to stop the importing of methamphetamine as best we can, right through to treatment options to deal with family members who are so affected by methamphetamine.

This is a seriously addictive drug, and it has been viciously destructive to the lives of so many young New Zealanders. It is hugely damaging to those who take it and to those who are around it. As the Minister of Police will confirm, so much of the burglary and violent crime in our communities today is driven by people who are on P and who are seeking to get more money to feed their drug habits. This Government wants to deal with that.

We are looking at it from a number of angles. When we look at the roll-call of shame that is associated with methamphetamine—William Duane Bell, Antonie Dixon, Ese Falealii, and Steven Williams—we ask how anyone in this House can say that we should not be taking every step we can to stamp this drug out of our communities. We know that 80 percent of the cold and flu tablets purchased in New Zealand today are pseudoephedrine-free. Over time the association of methamphetamine with cold and flu medicines has meant more and more New Zealanders decided that they do not want to buy that sort of cold and flu medicine. I repeat that 80 percent of the cold and flu tablets that New Zealanders buy do not include pseudoephedrine.

The most significant investment announced by the Prime Minister last week was $22 million into improving treatment services in New Zealand. We are all aware of the fact that there are just not enough beds to deal with this problem. About 2,000 people have presented seeking treatment options for methamphetamine, but only about half of those people got the care that they needed. In this plan we are putting $22 million over the next 3 years towards expanding the new methamphetamine treatment pathway. It will start with a stronger commitment by our district health boards to getting those waiting lists down, and we will also provide 2,700 social detox places over the next 3 years.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How many?

About 2,700. That is saying to methamphetamine addicts and users who want to get off the drug that there is a period of time when they can be in a serviced, clinically-appropriate social detox bed for the time they need to get down off the drug. Then a plan can be put in place for their treatment. Most people will be treated in the community, but there will be up to 400 additional places for methamphetamine users to be treated in longer-term residential facilities. That is 400 extra places over the next 3 years, and it increases the number of long-term residential beds that are available for drug users by 60 percent. It is a very significant investment. There is also a doubling of the number of social detox beds.

The Government wants to attack this scourge of methamphetamine on a number of fronts, and in a coordinated and comprehensive way. There is no point in saying that no one can get pseudoephedrine in New Zealand if we do not have a tougher customs response—and we will have a tougher customs response—and there is no point in saying we will try to get people off methamphetamine if we do not improve treatment options. That is part of the comprehensiveness of what the Prime Minister announced in Auckland last week. New Zealand families up and down this country will appreciate his commitment to dealing with this problem.

What a mess, what a shambles, and what a debacle—and that is just the comments that were made on television last night about the John Key Government’s antics, sideshows, and circuses. New Zealanders could be forgiven for thinking that they are seeing a chapter out of Alice in Wonderland. The Mad Hatter’s tea party comes to mind. The white rabbit John Key is rushing around on yet another overseas trip—he is up to six overseas trips now, in 9 months—shaking hands with the President of the United States, posing for photographs wherever he can, performing as a stand-up comic on The Late Show with David Letterman, flying to a holiday in Florida, as one does, and then flying to Samoa, all the time saying “I’m late, I’m late for a very important shower.”

John Key was in such a hurry when he was in Samoa that he had to speed through the streets at 120 kilometres per hour—maybe it is 130 kilometres per hour by now; it will probably be 140 kilometres per hour by next week—in a 40 kilometre-an-hour zone, scattering children, dust, and animals in his wake as he rushed to take his shower before he went out to look at the damage and destruction. Do members know what he said? He said: “I didn’t look at the speedo.” It is funny that we have heard that before, and that it was a terrible crime a few years ago for people to sit in the back seat and not look at speedos.

It is more important for the Prime Minister to strut his stuff on the world stage than it is to show some leadership in New Zealand on the debacles that are going on here, thanks to his Government. He is not interested in the real issues. He would prefer to have his photograph published in an overseas newspaper. The distractions and debacles that are going on here start with his own Minister of Finance. We have had weeks and weeks of the Minister of Finance being distracted by his own personal greed. That need to justify his own personal greed has overshadowed any look that he ought to have taken at the economy. He has no credibility or moral authority. He can stand up and tell the workers of this Parliament that they are not entitled to a pay increase, but he can take for himself extra money for his cleaner and a salary of a quarter of a million dollars. He preaches to the people of New Zealand that zero pay increases or increases of 25c per hour are good enough for them.

What does it do to this country when we have a Minister of Finance who is unable to concentrate on the real issues because he got caught with his snout in the trough and did not want to admit it? It will not matter what he does to try to correct that. He and the National Government can pay back all the money they like—and the amount of money the National Government has to pay back is sure mounting up—but it does not alter the fact that Mr English changed his arrangements to suit himself and his family. There is nothing we can say about such personal greed.

Then we had the debacle over the Māori Television Service’s bid for coverage of the Rugby World Cup. There are seven Ministers involved in this shambles of their own making. First of all the bid would be from the Māori Television Service, then it would be a joint bid led by Television New Zealand, and a few minutes ago we were told it would now be led by the Māori Television Service. There has been skulduggery and all sorts of back-stabbing and duplicity going on. It is no wonder that Māori Party members are furious with their so-called friends in the National Government. Their friends were plotting behind their backs and having meetings as long ago as September, planning a counter-bid against the Māori Television Service and the work that Pita Sharples was doing. I think we are now seeing the sort of duplicitous approach they can expect from a National Government that never supported and did not want Māori television. I say to members opposite that they should go and read Bill English’s speech and Murray McCully’s speech.

I thank members opposite for the applause! Last week when the Leader of the Opposition was charging around America making out that he was still the Minister of Trade—and, of course, he does not seem to have found his way back—the Prime Minister was dealing with a really big issue. He was dealing with a comprehensive plan on methamphetamine—P. It is a plan that, by the way, has been met with almost universal applause, except from the Labour Party. Let me quote the Mayor of Manukau City, Len Brown: “It’s good to see the government taking a lead on tackling this scourge and I’m also happy with the support for P treatment and detox. We need to help people who are caught up by this horrible addiction. I welcome this announcement from the government. We have now got to focus on tackling the drug runners, and I’m working closely with the police on a campaign to shut down the P labs and dak houses in our city.”

Let us have a look at what New Zealand police say. They are very excited about this: “a whole-of-Government approach means that we can actually get some action.” That is what they want to see. As the Opposition worries about who is doing what, where, how, when, and how fast, this Government is getting on with the job of dealing with the big issues.

Why should we be taking methamphetamine so seriously? That is the question we have heard from Labour members today in their questions.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, you haven’t. That is wrong.

We have heard from Jim Anderton today about why we are taking this so seriously. This is why we should, actually. This is the difference. Methamphetamine has some very, very serious consequences for people. It is extremely addictive in nature. We know that about 50,000 New Zealanders are addicted to this dreadful drug, and we also know that their families all suffer because of it. My colleague Tony Ryall has outlined some of the results of that: children killed because of this drug; babies left and abused because of this drug; families destroyed, lives destroyed, and young people dying of heart attacks because of this drug.

What happened under the previous 9 years of a Labour Government? Absolutely nothing happened. In fact, what has happened out in the community is that, after 9 years of a Labour Government, we now have organised crime in this country. Organised crime has gone right through the whole country. We now have organised crime involved in business. We have organised crime everywhere. The previous Government did not listen to the warnings of the Police Association—the union of police officers—which told it what would happen. And the Police Association was right. It was absolutely right. It is no wonder that the previous Minister of Police shuts up. The Police Association was right, and she would not listen. New Zealand police know exactly what has happened. We know that this country has allowed organised crime to come into it. This is a country that used to be organised crime - free. The previous Government let it in.

It is really important to remember that organised crime is about money. One of the great things that the police love about our methamphetamine plan is that the police can target the money. We are going to go after the money and the assets—the money that has been ripped off from our people. This Government has already introduced 10 bills this year. That is 10 bills in 10 months. How many more is that than the previous Government introduced? It is 10 more.

The previous Government never recognised the terrible crime that P has done to our people in this country. Yet it has left us with the highest rate of methamphetamine addiction per capita than anywhere in the world. That is the legacy of a Labour Government that could not tackle the hard questions and, instead, went after only the soft answers. When they looked at burglaries, they wondered why burglaries went up. Well, that is because of P addictions. They wondered why violent crime went up. Well, that is about P addictions. Those crimes are all fed by P. The previous Government never once recognised it.

I seek leave to table media reports noting the Government’s cut of $21 million from the police budget.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Could the member describe for the House where—

It is a media report.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What is the media report?

A report in the media.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I need to understand what I am putting to the House.

A newspaper report.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: But what newspaper?

The Dominion Post.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What date is it?

I do not have the date with me.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I cannot put a document to the House if we do not know what the document is. I cannot seek leave for that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Mr Cosgrove has told you that it is a report from the Dominion Post newspaper. He has given you the substance of what the report contains, yet you are saying that you do not know what you are putting to the House.

The member will resume his seat. If the member is having difficulty understanding, I say that I have made it very clear to the House that, with regard to recent newspaper reports, the Standing Orders Committee made it very clear in its report to this House that it considered that it was not appropriate for recent newspaper reports to be tabled. However, the Standing Orders have not been changed. I have made it very clear to members that when they are seeking leave to table a press statement or media report, we have to know the date of it, because if, in fact, it is a press report from some years ago, it may be perfectly sensible to make it available to the members of the House. If it is a newspaper article from only a couple of days ago, the House is unlikely to accept it. That is why it is important that the date of a press statement is available to members, so they can make a sensible judgment about whether they want to grant leave for it to be tabled.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask for clarification. It is a matter, as I understand it, for the House—not yourself, with respect—to judge whether a document is old or new, and whether it is acceptable to table it. As you rightly point out, Standing Orders have not changed. I will go and get the date of the document for the House, but I just note that it is a matter for the House, not you, to judge the relevance of it, because the Standing Orders, as you point out, have not changed.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable member, but I warn members that I take this matter very seriously, and I am not very amused.

Well, I think it is fair to say that members on this side are not very amused, either. I make the point that a number of members on this side are unhappy with editorialising from the Chair as to—

The member will resume his seat immediately. I have listened to enough. I will not tolerate this sort of nonsense. I have been very tolerant of Labour members today. At least, that is my view of the matter. If members seek to table press statements, I believe the House is owed the courtesy of knowing the date of those statements so it can make a judgment. I am not putting leave unless I know the date of the statement. I have ruled on that matter, and that is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a new point of order.

I seek leave to table a document from the Dominion Post as described by Clayton Cosgrove earlier.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If this is a press statement, I want to know the date of it.

I am not giving it to you.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I am not putting the leave if I do not know what the document is.

No, you cannot, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, and the next member to dispute my ruling will be leaving the Chamber. I make that very clear. I will not tolerate more of this nonsense.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling. I am asking you, and I would be grateful if you could rule either now or on a subsequent occasion, whether you are now saying that the discretion in respect of tabling documents and the quality or lack of quality of those documents is a matter to be decided by the Chair—

The member will resume his seat. Look, I simply ask members to treat this House with some respect. Members of the Opposition have heard me today sit Ministers down and stop Ministers from abusing the Opposition. I have been very hard on Government Ministers today. I treat this House absolutely fairly, but I expect the House to be treated with respect. I consider it disrespectful to the House for members to get to their feet and expect me to put leave to table some vague press statement from somewhere. How can the House make a judgment about that? The member can go and get his press statement, get the date of it, and then I will put the leave.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member that he had better not dispute my ruling.

I fully respect you, Mr Speaker, and I am not disputing your ruling. But as I understand it from the Standing Orders, I am entitled to simply ask for you to make a considered ruling. I am not disputing it; I am simply asking again whether you would confirm your advice to the House and make a formal ruling in that way.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, I have ruled on the matter, and that is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am warning the honourable member that I have ruled on the matter, and, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of it. It had better be a totally different point of order.

It is. I seek leave—and I am indebted to my technologically advanced colleagues—to table a document from the New Zealand Press Association of 16 June 2009 regarding the police vehicle fleet being reduced by this Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document of 16 June 2009. Leave is sought to table that press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It was not a press statement; it was a press report.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me if that affected members’ judgments. Let me put it again if my referring to it as a statement affected members’ judgments on this New Zealand Press Association report. I am seeking leave again. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Kia ora anō tātou. Te Māngai e te Whare, tēnā koe. When will we hear an apology being made to Dr Pita Sharples? Dr Pita Sharples earnestly advanced his cause and that of Māori broadcasting, and this Government sought to shame and embarrass him. It made him apologise to the Prime Minister and to National Ministers, and it sought to deprecate him in the midst of his own people, and what do we hear? Not a single apology. I say this afternoon to all the lawyers acting for the iwi that they should stand their Queen’s Counsel down. It will no longer be necessary to spend the hard-earned cash that the iwi holds to advance their Treaty entitlement to broadcasting rights to show the face of modern Māori in 2009.

We have seen today one Minister—we do not need Queen’s Counsel to find him; we need search and rescue—Dr Jonathan Coleman. We are expecting a letter of resignation from Dr Jonathan Coleman this afternoon. Not only has he misled his colleagues about the member from Auckland who will enjoy infamy amongst the car owners of South Auckland and the sentient voters of west Auckland but also we have seen potential wrongdoing that could end up in the High Court. It is a very tawdry affair of the misuse of confidential information that was provided in good faith by Māori Television to stakeholder Ministers.

That information was somehow fed into the process of a competing bid. Writs were to be served this afternoon in the High Court on behalf of iwi and Māori, who were going right back to fight the fights they had to have against National members in this House in times gone by. The Prime Minister has come in and essentially sacked Dr Coleman this afternoon, and he has done an extraordinary thing: he has closed down Murray McCully. He has shown that Murray McCully, who was responsible for this situation, can no longer abuse the position and privilege of being a Minister. Not only did he seek to humiliate the Māori Party—and I am glad for the sake of Māori Party members, because they do enough embarrassing things to themselves—but also he has sought to erode, to undermine, the commercial interests and to ruin the brand of Māori Television.

Māori Television is an institution that members on this side of the House gladly supported. It has tried to find a way to show the full personality of what it means to be a Kiwi in Aotearoa. Māori Television followed a process, only to find that it was being undermined by Ministers and members on that side of the House. So Dr Sharples had no reason to apologise, and we did not like to see him apologising and embarrassing himself in front of his senior Pākehā colleagues, because it reminded us too much of that historic relationship between Kiwi and iwi—that Kiwis would triumph à la through the senior Ministers. But what a shambles it is. It was almost as if, if it was a Māori Minister spending public money, there would be a hue and cry, but if it was Dr Jonathan Coleman, then who cares?

This is a historic day. Not only has good sense prevailed but also High Court writs did not need to be served. It remains to be seen whether those guns will be fired, but this is a very, very dark day for the Government and its tawdry treatment of our colleagues in the Māori Party. Admittedly, the process was slightly awry, but that paled into insignificance compared with the way in which public money was used, fast and loose, by the Minister of Broadcasting and, most important, by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. It just shows New Zealanders that not only was one arm of the Government competing and bidding with another arm in the process but also the process was enriching the administrators of the Rugby World Cup. Not one cent would have gone back to garden-variety Kiwis—not one cent.

The Minister responsible for this situation is gone; he is gone. I am not entirely sure whether it is a chance for Mr Foss or someone else to emerge, but I ask whether we have ever seen the gutting of a Minister in such a short period of time. He was swaggering on national television last night, boasting that he had found the money, and he was sat down by Mr English in embarrassment.

I am seriously delighted to take a call today and to talk to this House on what I think is probably the big issue of the day that needs to be considered. I congratulate the Prime Minister and other Ministers of this Government on taking the steps that were announced the other day with regard to the drug P. Those of us who are constituent MPs and who know about various issues to do with offenders on P will all have our own stories to tell.

For me, I guess, there are a number of stories. Antonie Dixon, who members will remember was the samurai sword man, did some dreadful damage. He was one of the stories. But I think that the worst of all times in my electorate was the killing in a Pakuranga pizza parlour one night of a young 23-year-old man, Marcus Doig. He was shot after he had complied with everything he was asked to do. He had handed over the money when he was asked to, he had walked away from the cash register, he had knelt down when he was told to, but he had then been shot in cold blood. Only 3 days later, the animal who had done that to him went and did the same thing to a 44-year-old bank teller, John Vaughan, in Māngere. There can be no more compelling stories than those to say to us that we have to take control of this drug.

In the customs portfolio we have already done a number of things that I think are quite spectacular, yet there is more to do. But before we talk about that, I will have a little smack at some of the editorial writers and the so-called knowledgable commentators who have had a smack at the National Government about stopping the over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine. Do members know what some of the commentators and editorial writers have said? They have said that this will not make any difference. Well, at the end of this speech, I intend to table this sheet of paper, if I can get leave. The article is from the state of Oregon in the United States. It shows that until 2004, Oregon was having about 470, 480 or so, methamphetamine lab busts per annum. That is how many methamphetamine labs were being busted. Then the state of Oregon moved to ban the over-the-counter sales of cold and flu medicines that contained pseudoephedrine, and let me repeat the numbers now: from around the mid-400s per annum it dropped in 2005 to 192. In 2006 it was down to 63. In 2007 it was down to 18. And this year, until the month of June, there have been seven lab busts. The number is now seven, down from the mid-400s figure for busts of methamphetamine labs. So to all those so-called know-it-all writers who say that banning sales across the counter will not have any impact, I say that they should look at the state of Oregon in the United States because it has made a huge difference to what was going on there.

With regard to the New Zealand Customs Service, I was pleased, when I negotiated the first priority settings with our Prime Minister at the beginning of my term, that the control and the stopping of methamphetamine, and the precursors to it such as pseudoephedrine, was one of our three key priorities. We have had a number of successes but I will report one issue, which is that the amount that is coming across our border is still growing in volume. Last year 733 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, in the form of Contac NT, was detected. We do not get a lot of P itself, because it is baked once the Contac NT gets here. This year to date, I am sorry to report, we have been able to intercept 796 kilograms so far. We have already intercepted more this year than in the full calendar year last year. That interception is great but, boy, there needs to be more.

I can tell members that there are dedicated people within the Customs Service. Task forces, specific operations, and sting operations are going on regularly. One operation that went on in August had a fantastic outcome. I can report to the House that over a 2-week period in August we trialled a new approach to P. It resulted in 26 separate seizures, totalling 46 kilograms of methamphetamine precursors. Just as Tony Ryall is doing stuff within the treatment side in the health portfolio, and just as Judith Collins is lifting the performance of the police in this area, I am happy to report that the Customs Service is taking this drug very seriously. We are doing a fantastic job of intercepting it, and we are going to do even better.

Following on from that speech made by Maurice Williamson, I think that those numbers from Oregon showing a reduction in methamphetamine lab busts after the ban on over-the-counter sales of cold and flu medicines that contained pseudoephedrine are quite insightful. Many New Zealanders would be very heartened to hear that there will be results from this great initiative led by our Prime Minister. Many a time in this House, in this Parliament, New Zealanders do not see actions that will result in success for our country and our people. The drug P has touched the lives of many New Zealanders, not only family members of those using the drug but also victims of crimes carried out to pay for this drug abuse. To finally have some action taken that will provide some serious results by restricting the use of this drug and by restricting the activities that go on to fund such drug use is something that many New Zealanders will take a lot of comfort from.

The Prime Minister has engaged in a very strong process in looking at this drug. He has looked at and dealt with not only the issue of the manufacture of the drug but also the way in which we deal with the drug users who need help and assistance to get over their use of the drug. That two-pronged approach that the Government has taken will be effective. We are not only trying to reduce the supply and use of this very addictive drug P but also looking at solutions for those individuals who have been caught in that process and need help and expertise to get out of it. When one looks at the process, one sees two prongs to it. Essentially, the first is to restrict the supply of the drug through the restriction of the purchase of it over the counter. Labour has come out against that measure. Labour members say in this House that they are against the use of P, but, at the same time, that they do not want to restrict the use or purchase through pharmacies of the ingredient drugs.

Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they have a cause and campaign against the drug P but, at the same time, do not wish to take the vital steps to reduce its ingredient components. Labour members need to stand up and understand that if they want to be against this drug, like all New Zealanders want to be, then they need to take some firm steps and not just look the other way and say that they want to have it both ways. They cannot say that they want the ingredients able to be purchased through pharmacies, yet want to stamp out the drug. We cannot do it both ways. We have to make some hard decisions and this Government has made the hard decisions, because we have set priorities. The priority is for New Zealanders not to be in a society that has this drug to the extent that it has it at the moment.

Overseas experience has shown that the first step of reducing those ingredients does lead to an effective constraint on the supply of that drug; Maurice Williamson just explained some of the statistics that are vital in showing that. When we look overseas in respect of the use of ingredients in the typical flu remedies that many people may try to purchase through the pharmacist, we find that most other countries that have banned the drug have found that the ban has not necessarily been detrimental to the health of their citizens. Leaving the ability for New Zealanders to go through the medical process of a doctor’s prescription still enables those New Zealanders who desire to use those ingredients to do so. We are giving New Zealanders that opportunity to use those ingredients, but in a controlled manner. They will be going through a process that will be in the best interests of our country. That is what we are doing here.

We are looking at a drug that should not be available to the extent that it is in New Zealand. There is no excuse for P to be so dominant in New Zealand, when in other countries it is not so dominant in the drug world. If that is the case, then we need to take those actions to make sure that that dominance is removed. These are the actions that are needed to do so. I applaud the Prime Minister and the Government for their strong work in this area to achieve those goals. A big part of the second prong is the strategy of dealing with those who are users of the drug and who need help to get out of it.

During my speech I said I would seek leave to table a document, so I now seek leave to table a document called Pre and Post Pseudoephedrine Control Oregon Meth Lab Incident Statistics, which indicates the statistics in Oregon since 2003 to year to date.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like some clarification. As per the Speaker’s very strict ruling previously, if we can have the date and publication of the graph, it would assist the House in making its judgment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the Hon Maurice Williamson whether he would care to elaborate and give the date to the House.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Unlike a newspaper article, which appears on a certain date, this is just a published statistic over all those years. It could have been published on any date you like.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): What is the date?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: There is no date. It is published by Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I have been consulting carefully with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this matter. I can find no precedent whatsoever for the requirement of a date or any right for any Speaker other than the current one to decline to put a matter of leave to the House. I respectfully disagree with the shadow Leader of the House. I think there can be no objection to that being put to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I will say that there is no reluctance on behalf of the Speaker to put the matter. The Speaker is required to put the matter because the Opposition wants clarification. The member is the author of his own misfortune. If the member wants to have the matter tabled, then he will not object. Is any objection to the document being tabled? There is none. The member may table to document.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table a document from a Parliamentary Library research request on pseudoephedrine in Oregon. It says that because of the measures that were taken, the increase in trafficking of the finished product has now occurred in Oregon. The demand for the drug has continued and drug cartels have now stepped into the gaps, with the local market increasingly supplying methamphetamine.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member should only describe the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It has been a bad year thus far for the good and honourable Dr Jonathan Coleman. He is a junior member of Cabinet, and when junior members of Cabinet have a bad year, then they are likely to be earmarked for the reserve bench at the next reshuffle. I do not think Dr Jonathan Coleman will be a Minister of anything for very much longer. It began much, much earlier in the year. I can remember a situation in about March or April where allegations had been made against one of Dr Jonathan Coleman’s colleagues, Mr Bakshi, in respect of a fake jobs-for-cash offer. The investigation by immigration officials turned up nothing. The immigration report said as much, when around about March or April it was made public under the Official Information Act. So incensed and distressed was the good Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman that he had a bit of a hissy fit and got a three-person inquiry to work out precisely why New Zealand’s officialdom had obeyed the law.

Then it turned out that things got worse. You see, soon after that, there was the resignation of the Rt Hon Helen Clark, and an inevitable by-election occurred. “The Maestro” from Mt Albert, the minder of Ms Melissa, then had a meltdown. His candidate almost came third. But in the middle of it, allegations were raised against his preferred and popular hand-picked candidate, the aforementioned Ms Melissa Lee, and those allegations concerned his portfolio. Did he say that he had a conflict of interest? Not on your nelly! Did he say that he needed to distance himself from one thing or the other? No, he did not. He just marched on gravely and gravelly, saying that he thought that National would do well. Then the “not guilty” finding came out before polling day. It came out broadly and widely. Almost every letterbox got a copy of it. But what did not come out any time soon was that the “not guilty” call was wrong, and that the aforementioned candidate had been inflating her invoices to the tune of a little over $100,000. That came out only in very recent weeks.

What did the good Dr Jonathan Coleman say about that? In a very careful and gravelly manner, he said that he did not learn about that until August. I see, so we are to believe that—OK. Then in August, he did nothing about it; actually, he almost forgot about it. At some point, credibility gets beggared, and I would have thought that credibility, and therefore perhaps the Minister, is beggared by now, but worse is to come. It happened this afternoon with the Māori Television Service debacle in this Government. Ministers were behaving conceitedly and deceitfully towards one another, so the Prime Minister finally stepped in this afternoon and said that Māori Television can have it, after all. That is a bit of a shame for the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, because he spent the past few days being the one Minister who was really in charge of this, and the one who, as the Minister of Broadcasting, was really promoting the Television New Zealand bid, and now he has been cut off at the ankles by his Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Knees!

He has been cut off at the knees, and that may be why he is currently on urgent public business in some other part of the country, even though his own bill, the Immigration Bill, is due up in a few minutes. I do not know whether the Minister, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, will be able to rush back excitedly to the House to see his own bill through. After all, it has taken a year, and he did have it written for him when we were in Government. He has taken his time over it. He might be able to get himself back to the House today but he has had a terribly, terribly tough afternoon. He, who was in charge of fixing this, has himself been fixed. He has been fixed by his boss. He also, as the Hon Shane Jones pointed out, needs to consider an apology to the Hon Pita Sharples, as does the Hon Murray McCully, whose contribution to this thing so far as I can work out has been to lose his temper on a repeated basis.

I do not believe that anyone in this House is disputing the devastating effects that methamphetamine is having on so many New Zealanders. Some estimate the cost of this drug to New Zealand as being in the billions. The cost is in what we pay out to help the victims of meth crime. The cost is in our health system, and the rehabilitation and treatment for meth addicts. The cost is in the prisons and in the police officers that we need to fight this drug. But the more difficult cost to measure by far is the personal cost to so many New Zealand families. How do we measure the personal cost to the father or mother who has spent months cleaning up the trail of destruction that their son or daughter has caused as a result of this drug? How do we measure the sleepless and tearful nights of parents waiting for the next phone call, not sure whether it will be a call from the police or a call from the hospital? How do we measure the cost to the parents who have had to bury their daughter or son because of this drug? How do we measure the impact on a young child who has been abused at the hands of someone on this drug? Some of the most horrific and violent crimes against our young children in this country have involved people on meth. Some of these crimes have snuffed out the lives of these young children. The question that our Government had to ask, given the devastating cost to New Zealand of this drug, was how far we, as parliamentarians, are prepared to go to try to get rid of methamphetamine from New Zealand.

The plan that we have delivered is tough, and it tackles the P problem from many different angles. The plan includes using powers to break drug supply-chains by attacking the gangs and criminal organisations that make, supply, and distribute this drug. The plan provides support to families and communities to stop people from becoming P users.

I want to focus on two key parts to the plan, which are restricting access to the precursor chemicals that P is made from and improving treatment services. One part of the proposal that has been criticised by the Opposition is the banning of over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine. This step has not been taken lightly, and this action reflects how seriously our Government takes the P problem. We want to make it harder for people to make P, and banning over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine will help us achieve this. One-third of all P labs busted each year were using cold and flu medication to create P. This is clear evidence that these medications are fuelling our P problem. Let us be clear. We are not banning pseudoephedrine at this stage. But making it available only with a doctor’s prescription will make it harder for people to make P. The other key point is that it is not about banning all over-the-counter cold and flu medication. Between 60 and 80 percent of cold and flu medications contain phenylephrine rather than pseudoephedrine. These medications are a safe and effective alternative, and will still be available over the counter at pharmacies.

Many New Zealand drug addicts and their families have struggled because they have wanted help but have not been able to get it. That is why we are ensuring more P addicts get treatment through rehabilitation and addiction services by providing more treatment capacity and better routes to treatment so they can quit. There will be an extra $22 million for P treatment over the next 3 years. This includes 2,700 patients who will be able to access new beds and social detox facilities. Another key aspect of this treatment plan is that families will be given the power to force addicts into compulsory treatment. Too many families in New Zealand feel absolutely powerless to help their loved ones. This aspect of the plan will help give power back to the families so that they can help their loved ones.

No one today has disputed the devastating effect that methamphetamine is having on so many New Zealanders. We all know the cost to mums, dads, and young kids. We are taking strong action in this Parliament to help New Zealanders suffering from this drug. I am proud to be part of this Government.

I think it was Harold Wilson who said in the 1960s that a week is a long time in politics. Here we are in the 21st century, and a day is a very, very long time in politics. I think that rarely has the House seen two successive question times quite like yesterday’s and today’s. Yesterday the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, sat slumped in his seat, having just learnt that the Government was going to fund a rival bid by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and TV3 against Māori Television’s effort to obtain the free-to-air rights to screen the Rugby World Cup. We cannot help but say his mana was trampled by that exercise. So was that of Māori Television—absolutely. I suggested last night in a blog that there would be some utu extracted from the Government because of that.

Today we have seen exactly that occurring. There has been no sign today of “The Maestro”, Jonathan Coleman. Instead, we had the Leader of the House attempting to deny what the Minister of Broadcasting had said yesterday, which was that the Government would fund TVNZ and TV3 to compete against Māori Television’s bid. This was a State agency bidding against a State agency. This is a Government that makes a virtue out of frugality and out of the need to cut funding. We were going to have a situation of two State agencies bidding against each other, to the benefit of the International Rugby Board.

So what changed? Well, I think what has really changed is that Dr Sharples has made a threat. I suggest to members opposite that the Māori Party must have said to the Prime Minister that it was ready to do something like walk out of the National-ACT coalition. We cannot see changes of this force, of this nature, and of this rapidity without those kinds of threats being put in place. I think Dr Sharples had every right to be very angry about what transpired yesterday. He had apologised to the Prime Minister for his oversight in not briefing Cabinet about the approach to Te Puni Kōkiri to assist Māori Television in its bid for the Rugby World Cup coverage. It was not a very glamorous spectacle for that approach to have come together without his Cabinet colleagues having been told. There is no excuse for that. But while Dr Sharples was apologising, his Cabinet colleagues were secretly putting together a rival bid against Māori Television. What an absolute shambles that was, and it was happening under a Government that supposedly makes a virtue of not spending more money than it needs to spend.

Mind you, the Government’s broadcasting policy throughout this year, as masterminded by “The Maestro”, has been a totally hands-off approach. Let me remind members opposite that just 3 weeks ago TVNZ announced it could no longer fund and run the free-to-air coverage of next year’s Commonwealth Games. It decided to on-pass those rights to Sky television. Where was the outrage? Where was the Prime Minister’s defence of the rights of all New Zealanders—100 percent of New Zealanders—to see the Commonwealth Games coverage? Where were New Zealanders going to tune to on free-to-air television to watch Valerie Vili win gold for New Zealand in New Delhi next year at the Commonwealth Games? There was not a squeak about that from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Broadcasting was totally relaxed about it. In fact, he said that the end was now in sight for the free-to-air coverage of major sporting events, and he was totally relaxed about that. Not a word was said. Next year New Zealanders, in their hundreds and thousands, will not be able to see the Commonwealth Games. Hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders will not be able to see the New Zealand competitors wearing the silver fern on their chest. Not a word was said about that by this Government. Not a word was said by “The Maestro”, Dr Coleman, the Minister of Broadcasting. In fact, he is the junior Minister, because we all know that the real Minister of Broadcasting is Mr Joyce.

Then what happened? The Māori Television Service got Te Puni Kōkiri funding lined up for the bid for the Rugby World Cup coverage. [Interruption] That is right.

💬 Paul Quinn: What do you know that we don’t?

We know a lot. I endorse the comments made by my colleague Shane Jones in saying I very much doubt whether Dr Coleman will retain the broadcasting portfolio for much longer, given his performance on that issue yesterday, not to mention the issues he is facing in terms of Melissa Lee and her failure to deliver properly to New Zealand On Air—but we will put that aside. So, the Māori Television Service got Te Puni Kōkiri’s funding, which was admittedly not an ideal policy move, and Dr Sharples apologised for not briefing Cabinet about that. Yesterday Dr Coleman, despite the attempts of Mr Brownlee to deny the patently obvious, publicly stated fact that the Government was prepared to fund Māori Television—

I join my National colleagues in congratulating the Prime Minister, John Key, and the great New Zealand Government, under the National Party, on a fantastic initiative in its fight against P. This is a well-resourced campaign. It is a comprehensive, well-researched, evidence-based campaign directed against an estimated 55,000 addicts and the crime syndicates that fuel their habits.

I was somewhat concerned this afternoon when I heard the Hon Jim Anderton comparing the problems of alcohol and tobacco with the problems of pure methamphetamine. He is quite right, they cause huge challenges to New Zealand, but in no way should the scourge of pure methamphetamine be belittled. Shortly after, in this debate, we heard the Hon Annette King trivialise just how serious the scourge of P is in this country. Over the last 15 years we have seen a logarithmic increase in the number of clandestine P labs. We have seen a logarithmic increase in the number of addicts in New Zealand. We have seen a logarithmic increase in the huge costs to every level of society, because this scourge affects families young and old, and people young and old at every stratum and level of society.

I would like to go back to Pukekohe in 2006, when a very brave Māori woman by the name of Marie Cotter set off with a contingent of people to march on Parliament. She was a very courageous and humble lady whose relatives were affected by this scourge. Young mothers were causing huge harm to their babies and she decided to do something about it. Indeed, that march ballooned as it headed from Auckland. Many thousands of people joined it, and finally it came to Parliament in the latter part of 2006. I am afraid to say that at that stage of events the Labour Government was doing very little about this situation. But at that time, in Pukekohe, we heard the local policemen say that within 5 to 6 kilometres of every town and hamlet in the vast rural electorate that I represent there was a P lab. One of the reasons was that very few police were available to enforce the law.

In the last 12 months it has been announced that there will be 300 extra police in the Counties-Manukau district, and already we have more than doubled the number of police in the Waiuku area. I acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Police for her great effort in ensuring that that election promise was there to ensure the enforcement of the various aspects of this multi-faceted initiative against P.

One of the great strengths of National’s fight against P is the evidence base behind it. I pay tribute to Sir Peter Gluckman for his very well-reasoned thinking and his excellent report, which has resulted in part in this initiative and in the fact that pseudoephedrine will be taken off the shelves of pharmacies throughout the country. Only last year in Pukekohe a highly respected pharmacist was convicted of dealing in P. No one had any idea whatsoever that this man was involved in that; it can affect every stratum of society. I want to end by quoting from the Science Media Centre. Again, this is part of the Government’s approach to having an evidence base behind what it does.

This Government is working hard to cushion our country not only from the effects of the worst recession we have seen since 1930 but also from the ravages of the most inept period of administration that New Zealand has seen in decades. I refer, of course, to the damage done by the spent, drained, terminally fatigued, listless, limp, and late Labour administration.

It was an administration for which the last years of Government were bereft of ideas. Creativity was a distant dream, and the idea of action was a barely recoverable memory from a cobwebbed cerebral closet. These last days of wheezy decrepitude extended over at least 3 years, possibly 5 years. They were 5 years during which an original thought stood out like an acoustic set at a Gaye Bykers on Acid concert, or a moment of fun at a temperance meeting. The empty husk of the late, unlamented Labour administration subjected our country to years of “hurry up and wait” calls to inaction. It was an omnipresent legislative leaden hand that stifled innovation and fresh thinking. It was a cloying embrace from a nanny seduced by the idea that consideration of process equated to action. Inaction was the default position of the previous inept administration. Nowhere is that seen more clearly than in the inaction addressing the scourge of crime and P in New Zealand.

I am proud of the work that John Key and the National-led Government have done to cope with the multitude of deficits that the previous administration left us to pick up. We have a quiver of measures to address the problem that P makes for all New Zealanders. We have given the police the legislative teeth they need to recover property and proceeds of crime from criminals—crime that is funded, more often than not, by the production of the scourge, on all levels of society, of P. We passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the Sentencing Amendment Act. They are all part of the tool kit to make our country safer.

We have also directed that we will not just take away gang profits but we will also use those profits against the gangs. We will ensure that the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity are poured back into the fight against crime, gangs, and P. In addition, in our first 100 days in office we introduced the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. That legislation will be passed as a matter of priority. It doubles the penalty for participation in a criminal gang, which is often making P from chemicals. It gives the police greater powers to investigate gang members and enable removal orders to gang fortifications, which often cloak the nefarious activity of the evil drug cook.

These measures are supported by the new Search and Surveillance Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. These will give the police the extra powers for investigating and fighting the scourge of P and of organised crime that afflicts all areas of our society today. They are scourges that were largely overlooked by the previous administration year after year. Some of the measures we are taking in our broad plan to tackle P include restricting access to the precursor chemicals of P. We heard some points on how that will impact upon ordinary New Zealanders, upon men and women who want to go and fix their sniffling colds. It will not impact upon them at all, because, as we heard from the Minister of Health, 80 percent of the commonly used medications do not contain pseudoephedrine.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.