General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Whoever would have thought that Esko Aho, the great right-wing leader of Finland, the great right-wing Prime Minister of Finland, would become a Labour Party icon? Is it conceivable that the Labour Party leader, trying to cut out a new bit of space for a demoralised, beaten, and shoddy-looking party, would choose a right-wing party leader from a country on the other side of the world to be his role model and, worse than that, that he would decide that New Zealand should set itself the target of becoming like Finland?

I think we need to understand a few things about Finland. Firstly, New Zealand surpassed Finland in the OECD better life rankings in 2010. We are ahead there. We have more consistent growth rates than Finland. But Labour members do not know these facts about Finland. They know only a few. I could give them some more. New Zealand has lower unemployment than Finland. New Zealand has lower inflation than Finland. We have better food and agricultural production than Finland. We have less than half the homicide rate of Finland. We have much higher economic freedoms than Finland. We spend more on education than Finland does. We have more women in third-tier education than Finland does. But this is the country—Finland—that David Shearer wants us to become like. That is the great Labour vision.

I, for the life of me, cannot believe that that is what the Labour Party wants. I do not believe it. There has got to be more to it than this, and I think the answer lies in the advice that Mr Shearer got in putting that speech together. He is new. We all know he is new and that he just wants to please everybody, and in particular he wants to please his deputy, Mr Grant Robertson, the great Labour apparatchik in political circles. Grant Robertson knew these things, so he said: “I’m going to set him up. I’m going to set him up.” Yesterday, when the Prime Minister unveiled some of this stuff in question time, who sat over there next to Mr Shearer, smiling? Oh, and how wide was that smile? You could drive a truck through it. He is trying to stay straight-faced now, but he cannot. He cannot stay straight-faced, because he knows that this is part of his cunning plan.

When the big event came and Phil Goff moved on—but has he moved on; we will come back to that in a minute—Grant Robertson was too new, too raw, to put his name forward, and a little bit too timid, I suspect. So we had the battle of the Davids. We saw David Parker disappear pretty early, then David Cunliffe and David Shearer had a bit of a go, and it must have been a real coin toss there. However, David Shearer came through, and who sidled up beside him to become the deputy? The most ambitious man in the Labour Party: Mr Robertson. I think you have got to hand it to him. In a machiavellian sort of situation he is fantastic. That is unbelievable, is it not? You can actually get someone to go out there and make a speech saying: “I want New Zealand to be like Finland, which has worse unemployment than us, has less growth than us, can hardly feed the people who live there, has a terrible homicide rate, hardly educates its people, and has no respect for women.” That is what he wants for New Zealand. That is a master stroke—a master stroke—from Mr Robertson, who wants to set up Finland as being an icon for New Zealand, touted by poor old Mr Shearer. Sooner or later, Mr Shearer may wake up.

Then there is the issue of Phil Goff. How many times did we see Phil Goff on TV? Three, four, or five times a week? More than we saw of him as the Leader of the Opposition. Tell me he is not on a comeback trail. He is in the paper; he is here, there, and everywhere. It is unbelievable. If you measure the column centimetres—Phil Goff versus David Shearer, and then throw in a bit of Grant Robertson—you will see that poor old Mr Shearer is in third place again. It is not tidy. Mr Robertson, if I were you I would be moving out of that seat over to where Annette King is and giving Phil Goff a big shove sideways, because it looks to me like he is on the comeback trail.

One of the interesting things is that it appears that the rest of the Labour Party members, who sit there now in stunned silence at this revelation, have not quite worked out what is going on. Trevor Mallard always laughs, and that is a sure sign he is thinking: “Oh, I didn’t see that coming.” They have just worked out what Mr Robertson’s cunning plan is: to set up Mr Shearer as often as possible.

That speech was from the Minister of Transport, who has come up with one good idea, and that is the changes to the give way rules, which now mean we give way to the left. That is what happens. So Gerry Brownlee has finally come up with a good idea—to give way to the left on this side of the House.

We need to be absolutely clear about what happened in Parliament today. We heard from the Prime Minister that if somebody writes a letter on ministerial letterhead asking for an intervention to give someone a comparative assessment of their health about their capacity to work, on ACC letterhead, that is just an error of judgment and it is not sufficient to breach the Cabinet Manual. That is what we heard from the Prime Minister today. The Cabinet Manual may as well go in the recycling bin all around Wellington because this Prime Minister has decided that it does not matter—it does not count.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It does matter.

It matters more than that. You are right, Ms Dalziel. It matters because it is what holds Ministers to account. New Zealanders deserve to know—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a series of quotes by Helen Clark on the Cabinet Manual. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the source of this document?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The source of this document is numerous quotes by the Rt Hon Helen Clark about how the Cabinet Manual is just—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that he has interrupted a member’s speech gratuitously, and that is not on. The Leader of the House should know that.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You are very sensitive on the other side of the House today, Mr Brownlee. What we heard from John Key today is that writing a letter on ministerial letterhead to intervene in an individual ACC case does not meet Mr Key’s threshold of what is unacceptable for a Minister’s behaviour.

The Cabinet Manual could not be clearer, Mr Brownlee. The Cabinet Manual says that a Minister should be very careful not to use information they access in the course of their official activities in a way that might provide some special benefit to family members, whānau, or close associates. Bronwyn Pullar was a close associate of this Minister—we all know that—and now we have the situation where we have ministerial standards reaching an all-time low under this Government. This came from a Prime Minister who said he was going to increase standards. He said “I will take the action necessary if Ministers do not meet their standards.” Mr Key has failed that test today. Mr Key has said that the Cabinet Manual, the document that upholds constitutional accountability in our country, is worthless to him. It is worthless to him. This is just a continuation from this Government—the actions of Dr Smith and the way John Key has responded—of this Government’s new slogan, “Crony capitalism”. That is what we see from this Government. At every step of the way it is about cronyism. Take Steven Joyce and Skycity: “Let us make sure Skycity can have some more pokie machines through a deal by Steven Joyce.”

Stephen McElrea, who is on the board of New Zealand On Air, is the chair of the Prime Minister’s electorate committee. We still have not heard from the Prime Minister as to what role he played in that appointment. What did he know about that appointment? We have cronyism from beginning to end with this Government. We saw it just the other day. I do not mind Dr Wayne Mapp. He is a cheery old fellow. But he has been appointed to the Law Commission without any proper process from this Government, once again. Sometimes Mr Mallard thinks that he taught at a polytechnic, but that is not fair. Wayne Mapp is a good person. He did not deserve to be put in the situation whereby he was appointed to the Law Commission with absolutely no process whatsoever.

We know that right from the top in this Government cronyism is alive and well. We saw it most rightly in the MediaWorks debacle: a $43 million loan going to the company that Steven Joyce has long had links with, then, lo and behold, that very company hosts the Prime Minister’s Hour. Cronyism was alive and well. The Prime Minister’s office was involved in writing communications for Radio Live so that the office could cover up its involvement in it. This is cronyism. Dr Nick Smith’s example is only one small part of a ministry that has gone beyond the standards that even we thought they would stoop to. [Interruption]

What was that from Jonathan Coleman? Dr Coleman, of course, knows all about this. His standards have been high right from the beginning, right from the Mt Albert by-election on. He is now in this Cabinet, which has reached a new low in standards of behaviour. We have a Cabinet Manual that is created to protect New Zealanders’ interests so that they know that conflicts of interest will be managed. And today in this House the Prime Minister has said that that Cabinet Manual means absolutely nothing. He has lowered the standards of behaviour of Ministers, not increased them. From the beginning to the end of this administration we have seen cronyism. This Government is a total shambles.

I want to contrast the two speeches last Thursday, dubbed by the media “Super Thursday”. What we saw from the Leader of the Opposition was him trying to say that we need a new New Zealand and we need to be like Finland. You would have thought that the research unit in the Labour Party would have at least done some work, would you not? But, alas, Mr Shearer got up for his big speech and pretty much the first thing he said for this parliamentary year was “We want to be like Finland.” What I could not believe when we delved into it—and it was exposed yesterday by the Prime Minister—was that Finland has a mixed-ownership model. Its big energy company, Fortum, is 51 percent owned by the Government. Then we went on and also exposed that Finland has a higher rate of unemployment than what we have here in New Zealand.

We discovered in Mr Shearer’s speech last week that he is a quiet supporter of welfare reform. Is that not surprising? We also found out from Mr Shearer last week that he supports lifting education standards. Is that not great? If Mr Shearer was here I would like to ask him whether he supports national standards. That is one thing Mr Shearer should come down to the House and say: “Yes, I support not only the welfare reform that this Government is delivering but also the roll-out of national standards.”, which is going very well up and down New Zealand and is being well received by parents in my electorate of Ōtaki.

Also what we heard from Mr Shearer last week was that not only does he want a new New Zealand; he wants a brighter future. But one thing is for sure: our campaign pitch last year resonated right across on the other side of the House, and it is now imprinted in Mr Shearer’s brain that indeed he wants a brighter future for New Zealand.

What we found from Mr Shearer’s speech was that actually he wants to move the Labour Party towards the centre. In my humble view, Mr Shearer has not even shored up the left of his support. With the ports protest, we did not see Mr Shearer proudly holding the banner out the front with the union workers at the Auckland port; we saw Mr Cunliffe out there. Lo and behold, we still have the battle of the Davids. Mr Cunliffe dragged Mr Shearer along to the protest by those Auckland port workers. I am sure Mr Cunliffe, when he gets up in his general debate slot this afternoon, will indeed confirm that.

Contrast Mr Shearer’s woeful contribution in his speech last Thursday with what the Prime Minister announced: policy of substance, better public services, more efficiency, reducing costs, and better results for New Zealanders. It is worthwhile running through those 10 platforms, where we have got stretch targets over the next 3 to 5 years.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Which targets?

Reducing the number on the working-age benefit—and I am sure Mr Mallard’s electorate will be pleased to hear that in Hutt South—getting a greater participation in early childhood education, which is hugely important; lifting the rates of infants being immunised; reducing serious assaults on children, and I am sure we would all agree with that; lifting those 18-year-olds up to getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which is hugely important if you want to move to a productive New Zealand economy; increasing the proportion of 25 to 34-year-olds who have trade or tertiary qualifications; reducing overall crime, and we heard that today from Minister Collins, who is doing a fantastic job in her work as Minister of Justice; reducing the overall reoffending rate; the one-stop shops online to help grow New Zealand’s business—and I want to make another contribution on that in a moment—and ensuring that we have more digital transactions for the New Zealand public. There are big reforms happening in this space, big targets that this Government is going to be held to account on, to ensure that we reach them.

The other big news of last week in this speech by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, was the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, rolling four agencies into one, which is going to be hugely important to drive our economy forward.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri rauna tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Four years ago the armed offenders stormed the homes of innocent families, broke down doors, smashed windows, overturned furniture, forced people to their knees in front of their children, refused them access to water and even the right to go to the toilet, degraded and dehumanised civilians, set up armed barricades and stopped traffic, boarded kōhanga reo buses and scared the crap out of little kids, and gave Tūhoe another reason to hate the forces of the State.

That exercise in police terror, carried out on 15 October 2007, led to people all over the country being charged with terrorism, amidst heightened global concerns of terrorist activity, and created within the wider society of New Zealand an instant and unreal fear of the kinds of images that we have been barraged with on mainstream TV.

Although those charges were very quickly thrown out, the State simply had to follow through with new charges, because it had already been running its campaign for more than 12 months. It had gone in fully armed and under the full glare of the media. It had made a very public commitment to the most serious charges in the history of our nation, and it simply had to justify its involvement in what turned out to be an extremely violent police operation.

That operation came to an end only yesterday with a decision that should have been about by the triumph of justice, but was not. All it was, was a sad and sorry end to a tragic raid into the heartland of the Tūhoe, because for all of the drama, the high expectation, and the grainy videos yesterday the jury could return verdicts on firearms charges only. That is all we got, after a 4-year campaign that cost the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars, divided the nation, and gave people a genuine reason to fear their own police force.

Today, the day after the case ended, justice is still denied to the people of Tūhoe. Today I remember those who died with a cloud of doubt hanging over them and their families, and who will never now get the chance to refute the allegations made against them. Today we recall the statement made by one of the defence lawyers, who said that the Crown case could best be summed up with the simple words “Māori plus guns equals crime”. Today we can still feel the deep-seated racism that not only exists but flourishes within critical agencies of the State, and today the hearings may be over for the Urewera Four, but not for the people of Tūhoe.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I regret to interrupt the honourable member, but I just do want to make clear the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders of the House prohibit reference to matters that are before the court, and that includes up until the sentencing of anyone who has been before the court. That is Standing Order 113/3. Members are not precluded from commenting on matters that are before the court, but they should advise the Speaker in advance if they intend making any reference to matters before the court. I just ask the member to be aware of that for the future, and to be careful of what he says in relation to this matter, because it is still before the court. The people whom the member has been referring to have not yet been sentenced, and great care should be taken in making any reference to it in the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I deliberately spoke to a lawyer about this speech, to ensure that details of the case were not actually raised in my speech. I am referring in specific terms to issues that arose from the not guilty pleas, and in particular the primary charge, which got held over. So I am not talking about the charges for which they have been found guilty and for which they are due to still come before the court.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Often, lawyers are not experts on the Standing Orders of this House. It is Standing Order 112 that requires members to advise the Speaker and give the Speaker written advice of what they intend to cover, because all matters relating to the charges relating to those people are matters that are still before the court. I just ask the member to be careful in reference to that matter.

Kia ora. There has been no apology. There has been no compensation. There has been no public acknowledgment of the need for change in police operations or for new engagement policies as a result of the litany of errors we now know as Operation Eight. We know that, because just last month the armed offenders went back into Tūhoe, smashed up somebody’s house, terrorised the inhabitants, and got nobody.

Today I am proud to say that Mana will stand alongside those in our society who reject tyranny, and stand against those who would use the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Search and Surveillance Bill to crush independent thinking, to force us to fear what we say and to hide what we do, and to stop us from choosing freedom over oppression. Today I salute Tame Iti and his comrades for their dignity, for their courage, for their passion, and for their love of this land.

Tomorrow I pray for an end to the kind of blind police operation developed in a silo of ignorance and fear. I look forward to a time when local issues can be handled with a modicum of intelligence, a minimum of fuss, a measure of goodwill, and the realisation that brutalising communities in the defence of justice leads not to justice but to the growth of injustice, disharmony, and righteous anger. Thank you very much. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe. I too apologise in advance for not being aware of that Standing Order. I also wish to speak about the Terrorism Suppression Act, but I will be guided by you, Mr Speaker, if I step out of line. I intend to talk about the bigger picture and the issue of the 15 October events.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As long as the honourable member does not talk about the matters particularly before the court, I invite her to proceed.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the member gets going I think it would be useful for you to indicate the matters that are still before the court. There are clearly a large number of cases that were dropped and charges that were dropped. The question of guilt or innocence is no longer before the court; it is only the matter of sentence that is awaiting adjudication now.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In respect of the wider picture, no charges remained under the Terrorism Suppression Act or, actually, were finally brought under the Terrorism Suppression Act. So as long as the member stays in that general territory I do not see that the member is going to be in breach of the Standing Orders, at all. In respect of the matters on which the people were convicted, that is a matter that preferably there should be no comment on. They relate particularly, as I understand it, to charges in relation to the illegal use of arms.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is worth bearing in mind that in respect of the matters that were before the court, as I understand it, the jury could not reach a verdict on certain charges that were before the courts. Therefore, there is still a question about whether or not the Crown prosecutor will retry the case, and therefore they could well fall within the Standing Orders that we are talking about.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard very briefly.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is quite plainly wrong. The trigger that sets it off will be the re-laying of the charges.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept the Hon Trevor Mallard’s view of that. What I would just draw to members’ attention, though, is the new Standing Order that requires members to advise the Speaker in writing if they intend to comment on matters that could be seen to be matters before the court; this is clearly something that is in that territory. But I think the member understands what areas to avoid now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 15 October 4½ years ago an event appeared on our television screens that looked more like an American macho cop show than anything we had seen in this country for many years, but it was real. It reminds me of the Ahmed Zaoui case—a situation where over-assumption and then scrambling to save face resulted in considerable breaches of human rights for communities across Aotearoa New Zealand. The Crown had also determined to test the Terrorism Suppression Act, and therefore it was testing it against a group of citizens across the country, some of whom did not even know each other, and yet were dragged into a debacle that has gone on for the last 4½ years.

Firstly, however, before I talk about the Terrorism Suppression Act I want to mihi to the whānau of Tūhoe Lambert from Waikaremoana. Tūhoe Lambert is unable to receive justice, because he passed away in July last year. So his whānau will never receive any of the justice that he sought through the process after he was charged. I guess the Green Party today wants to pay respect to that whānau for the price that they have paid for what has become one of the most bizarre cases in the history of New Zealand law.

The most abusive and bizarre behaviour occurred during a paramilitary lockdown on 15 October at a small community called Ruātoki in the Bay of Plenty, where whānau were dragged literally out of their beds or confined in their homes, where their roads were blocked, and where their children bore the brunt of what the children of Ruātoki now call the ninja attack. Three hundred armed, faceless, military-style police entered that community at dawn, and the scars are still being carried by the children of Tūhoe. Those scars will be carried for a very, very long time. It is easy for us as adults to rationalise what happened, but they cannot forget and they will not forget.

Whānau and hapū organisations have talked to me personally about the traumatic reinforcing of the marginalisation and fear of the Crown since a history of abuse that goes right back to the original raupatu and to the police and military invasion of Rua Kēnana’s community at Maungapōhatu early in the last century. So for the Ruātoki community it has been another round of oppressive attacks by the armed State in the name of the law, where people were held at gunpoint literally on the confiscation line. If people do not know what I am talking about they should read our history; it is very instructive.

Why did the Crown do this? Did the Crown need to do this? Did the local police liaison people not know where to find Tame Iti, who has been a resident of that area all his life, and who is well known in the rohe as a social and community worker with local youth and community issues? As Tame Iti said many times: “Why didn’t the police just come and talk to me?”.

But something else was being tested that day. It was the internationally motivated Terrorism Suppression Act. That day saw the fears of many of us that the Terrorism Suppression Act would be attempted to be used against the activist community, and citizens who dared to challenge dominant culture views—particularly tangata whenua—would be at risk. And how right we turned out to be.

Even though the police case was not accepted by the Solicitor-General, the price is being, and has been, paid. The whole house of cards came down because the Solicitor-General said that it could not be called terrorism. It led to a bunch of charges that are currently partially before the court to this day. However, the Supreme Court refused to allow some of the evidence that has been used in the latest case, and the whole terrorism suppression meme that these people were a bunch of people about to destroy the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand as we know it fell apart, not only in the media, not only for those who know about it, but also in the face of the Supreme Court law.

But people have to realise the cost that this has been to these communities and realise that people who had all their charges dropped are still paying thousands of dollars for their legal aid repayments. The 15 October debacle requires the following: no retrial, apology to Tūhoe, and an independent inquiry. And I just want to say, as a citizen and MP—

I was waiting for a, I suppose, better speech from Grant Robertson, but all he did—

💬 Hon Member: No, you weren’t.

I was. All we heard was him gloating—gloating in the fact that the Opposition has scored a goal. After 3½ years all members opposite had to do was to get up and say what Labour proposes to do in the next couple of years. But what did we hear from Grant Robertson? What did we hear? A horrible attack on a person who has spent nearly 20 years in this place. So what I want to do today is hit back to them—hit back on these people. I want to mention a few names. The Hon Dover Samuels—sacked as Minister of Māori Affairs but never given his job back by Helen Clark. No evidence of criminal behaviour was found, but he was not given his job back. In fact, what he got was to be the Minister of State, whatever that is. Ruth Dyson—drunk in charge of a vehicle. [Interruption] Oh, she was not?

💬 Hon Member: She wasn’t.

Oh well, I do not know. Phillida Bunkle—yep, I remember Phillida Bunkle—and Marian Hobbs. Harry Duynhoven—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: When are you getting to me, Tau? What about me?

Ah, you are coming. It is here—it is here. Harry Duynhoven had his ministerial powers suspended after inadvertently breaking the electoral law by renewing his Dutch citizenship. Lianne Dalziel was fired because she lied. John Tamihere—he resigned his portfolios because there were reports that he accepted $195,000 from Waipareira Trust.

💬 Hon Annette King: Your friend.

Oh, absolutely. He was my lawyer. Here is the thing: he told voters that he was not going to accept any payout, but he did.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: If you’re guilty, get John.

I am getting to you, Mr Mallard. I am getting to you. David Benson-Pope—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Referring to “you” is referring to the Speaker, and I hope you are not getting to the Speaker.

Yep, OK, we know. Taito Phillip Field—we know what happened to him. His mates tried to cover up for him and then they distanced themselves. They were members of the Labour Party.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Remember what he was guilty of? Working hard for his constituents.

Working hard for his constituents in Thailand. David Parker—he resigned as Attorney-General and transport, energy, and climate change Minister.

Then there was my good friend Winston Peters. He stood aside from his foreign affairs, racing, and associate senior citizens portfolios outside—

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What about Pansy Wong?

Oh yeah, but I am talking about their side. See, I am talking about their side, because they did not have to get up and gloat. They did not have to get up and gloat, but they did.

And then we come to Trevor Mallard. Trevor Mallard—the violent one, the one with the anger problem, who, I might add, has just come back from England because, after 30-odd years in this place, he still does not know about parliamentary practice. So he went over. He travelled to England. He travelled to England to learn about parliamentary practice after nearly 30 years in the place. I would have thought—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is quite alarming. He is accusing my colleague of going to England to learn about parliamentary practice, but he is going to Uganda to learn about it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will sit down. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I guess the score is about one all at this stage in terms of spurious points of order, but I do not want the score to be raised by anyone in the House. That kind of point of order is totally out of order.

I am going to Uganda to teach them about parliamentary procedure—that is the difference. And I am going with a Labour member. Oh, so what do we say about that? And also a Green member. The fact of the matter is—the fact of the matter is—that we should not gloat about the demise of anybody in this House, because all we heard today was a pretty sad story about a person who has given his life for this place. He made an error. He stood up, he copped it on the chin, and he did what everybody has been baying for. I just want to say before I close that I hope that it does not happen to anybody else in this Chamber.

Today is quite a sad day for Parliament. It is a sad day for the Government. I think it is a particularly sad day for the Government, because today is the day when the Prime Minister stood up and told the House that the Cabinet Manual does not matter—that the provisions in the Cabinet Manual do not matter and that he is not going to enforce the standards of behaviour required by the Cabinet Manual.

Back in December 2008 John Key said that he expected high standards from his Ministers, and that if they did not meet the standards that he set, then he would take action as necessary. That was in December 2008. How does that contrast with what he was saying just a day or two ago—in fact, yesterday—when he said “If you are going to sack ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you’d be sacking a lot of Ministers.”?

So how many other Ministers in his Cabinet does he think do not have the judgment to be Ministers, and why is he not sacking them? Why is he not sticking to his December 2008 comment, when he said that he was going to set high standards for his Ministers? That has gone out the window now, and it seems that Ministers can go into bat for people in their own ministerial portfolios—for people whom they are friends with—and John Key does not have a problem with that.

John Key has never been good at managing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are rife in this Government, and John Key does not care about that. We saw that with Pansy Wong, we saw that with Richard Worth, and we saw that with many other Ministers in this Government, and John Key does not care about the conflicts of interest.

Let us look at what the Cabinet Manual says and at why John Key should hold his Ministers to account for it. Paragraph 2.59 of the Cabinet Manual is very clear: “Ministers themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest and ensuring that any conflicts of interest are promptly addressed …”. That did not happen in this case.

That did not happen in this case, and John Key should have taken action earlier. He should not have waited for Nick Smith to resign. As soon as he found out that there was an issue, he should have demanded that Nick Smith disclose to him all of the relevant information, and then he should have taken action. He did not do that.

He is the Prime Minister. He is responsible for Ministers’ conduct. The very first thing he should have done is say “Nick, I want all of the relevant information. I want you to disclose for me every piece of correspondence.”, and he did not do that. He did not exact from his Ministers the very high standards that he said he was going to exact from his Ministers before he became Prime Minister—or when he first became Prime Minister. He has lowered those standards.

“A conflict may arise”—this is the Cabinet Manual again—“if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government.” That is clearly the case here. There is no question that when John Key saw the letter yesterday that Nick Smith had written, he, clearly, should have known that that provision in the Cabinet Manual had been violated, and Nick Smith should have been stood down there and then.

For the Prime Minister to come to the House today and say that having seen that letter yesterday—not what happened today; what happened yesterday—he was still comfortable with Nick Smith remaining as a Minister is simply not good enough. It was very clear yesterday what should have happened. The Prime Minister should have taken the right course of action and he did not do so.

That is not acceptable from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised New Zealanders higher standards of ministerial conduct and for 3½ years he has failed to live up to that promise. This is not the first time we have seen National Ministers with massive conflicts of interest and the Prime Minister not doing anything about it.

There is another concern with this ACC case. It says that there is one rule for the National Party and its mates and another rule for all the rest of New Zealand. There are unresolved issues here. The question I have is: why is it that ACC officials—senior ACC officials—were meeting with Bronwyn Pullar in the first place? Why were they meeting? That does not happen with other ACC claimants. Why was it? There needs to be a full inquiry into this issue. Nick Smith’s resignation does not bring an end to the matter. There still needs to be an inquiry.

The member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Hipkins, has said that today is a sad day for this Parliament. Well, actually every single day is a sad day if you are a member of the Labour Opposition.

If we look back at last Thursday, we heard a speech from the leader of the Labour Party that was a classic example. It was meant to be about the dawning of a new day or the dawning of a new New Zealand. Perhaps he actually should have renamed it the dawning of a new Finland, because that is what he spoke about. I want to take another little glimpse at the connections Labour has made with Finland and to look back at something that was in the Listener in 1985. The comparison was being made by Roger Douglas. He was talking about the use of Rogernomics in Finland—actually, it was the birth of the expression “Rogernomics”. Unfortunately, what we saw back then, and it is possibly something the current leader is wanting to follow, was that Douglas was relying on the fact that Finland had made these reforms, but he did not bother to check whether those reforms had got the outcomes that were expected. As we heard from Gerry Brownlee today, sad to say, actually New Zealand is doing far better in many, many areas than Finland. So it is really unfortunate that the leader of the Labour Party also has not bothered to do his homework and check his facts as to whether any of these reforms will lead to anything.

Harking back also to the Labour Party, its leader for 9 years, Helen Clark, referred to this Cabinet Manual, which the previous speaker referred to, as only a guide—only a guide. From listening to the member who resumed his seat prior to my speech, you would think this was the Holy Grail and this would be absolutely everything. But, unfortunately, Labour’s leader for 9 years referred to it as only a guide.

I actually want to focus on two key areas in the limited time that I have. One of them is the work that has been started—probably, of any of the issues that my constituents bring into my electorate office, it is the one that they are hanging out for—on reform of local government. The complaint that they have is about their rates—over and over and over again. We have local government that is actually not living within its means. Interesting to say, the Dominion Post has said that in its opinion the councils have shown a disturbing lack of appreciation of the circumstances faced by their communities. This is actually what is important. If we look at what is important to our constituents, to the people of New Zealand, we see that they are tightening their belts on a daily basis. What are we doing with this reform? We are simply saying to local government: “You need to do the same. You need to tighten the belt.” It is interesting that Local Government New Zealand has come out and said that it supports the reform in principle. That is why this work is so important. It is refocusing the purpose of local government, introducing fiscal responsibility—that is something that the Government here, central government, has to operate within—strengthening council governance, and also streamlining council reorganisation. It is about making sure that the rates that locals pay every single day are accountable, that they are manageable, and that they are not excessive. If they have gone up 7.6 percent when the CPI has increased only 3 percent, something is going on. So that is what we are looking at. Seven percent every year is excessive, and we have got to do something about that and get on top of that particular trend.

The other thing that I do want to touch on, and that I am enormously proud of the Prime Minister announcing last week, are the targets. Some targets in particular I think it is worth bringing to the attention of the House, and they are the ones around the support that this Government is giving vulnerable children. One of the things I have spoken about a lot in this House and in my community is the need to increase participation in early childhood education. The one thing that I do not think there would be any disagreement in this House on is that the first 5 years of a child’s life are vital, and children getting the best start possible in education is the one thing we should all agree on.

Today we learnt that the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia has reached a new high—1,000 a week—and that excluded the Minister of Local Government, or the former Minister. We take no pleasure in the resignation of Dr Nick Smith, who made a contribution to restraining some of his more slash-and-burn colleagues from their tendencies. I want to wish him and his family well for the future. But the fact is his resignation was necessary from the day that he wrote on ministerial letterhead a letter that could have been perceived only as inappropriate influence for a friend of his, who was also a friend of the Prime Minister and a friend of the former president of the National Party. Unfortunately the responsibility for that must rest with the Prime Minister, John Key.

John Key said he would be “principled and transparent” and would “expect high standards from Ministers”, except that has never been true. Pansy Wong was allowed to continue in her portfolio weeks after evidence of her and her husband’s joint use of ministerial privileges for family business was in the public domain. Richard Worth paid the price, but not before, sadly, becoming an object of ridicule in this House and in the media.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. I confess I let Hone Harawira get away with reading a fair part of his contribution in this general debate, but he is a much newer member than the Hon David Cunliffe. The Hon David Cunliffe is a very experienced front-bench member and does not need to read a speech in the general debate. I invite the member to join the debate rather than read a speech.

With great pleasure. Murray McCully has made a habit of sending official information from his private email address and no one understands why, and John Key has done nothing. Bill English was allowed to rent his family trust’s home from the taxpayer at an awfully inflated sum—double that of a normal member of Parliament—and John Key did nothing. Rodney Hide took a taxpayer-funded junket with his girlfriend right round the world, which included a family wedding and a holiday in Hawaii, and John Key did nothing.

How about this one: David Carter sought briefings on ministerial business from a company he owned shares in and had to back down only after being sued for it by the Auckland Jewish congregation, and John Key did nothing. And Paula Bennett savagely breached the Privacy Act to attack New Zealanders who had dared to question her policies, and John Key did nothing.

But John Key has done some things. He has said the following, which we call the Key doctrine: “If you are going to sack Ministers for … an error of judgment … you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.” I call this the Key doctrine.

Well, here are some errors of judgment from the Minister whom John Key cannot tell whether he is a bird, a plane, or Superman: Steven Joyce. Steven Joyce negotiated in secret with Telecom New Zealand to write down the law by $400 million to $600 million, according to the Ministry of Economic Development, for the broadband roll-out, and John Key cheered him on. Steven Joyce deferred $43 million of spectrum licence fees from, principally, a company that he himself used to own and run. It is the same company that gave John Key a free hour—the Prime Minister’s Hour—just before the election. Of course, John Key did nothing.

Steven Joyce is negotiating in secret with New Zealand’s largest casino for between 500 and 1,000 extra pokie machines. That would entirely pay off a convention centre in less than 5 years, and John Key thinks that is a good way of doing business.

John Key set the standard in negotiating down the law to suit Warner Bros. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was a precedent New Zealand cannot afford. And John Key set the standard.

The standard of appointing his own electorate chairman, Stephen McElrea, to be deputy chair of New Zealand On Air puts political control over the use of taxpayers’ funds, like the time he allegedly stymied the bio series of the Government of Helen Clark. That is political control over taxpayer funds. It is a direct appointment by the Prime Minister of his own political henchman, and he thinks that is appropriate.

Is it any wonder that this Government has had the most rapid onset of “second-term-itis” in New Zealand political history? The most rapid onset. And now Murray McCully has become synonymous with political bravery, being a quisling for his own reforms.

That is the worst possible delirious answer in this debate. I think that member who just sat down, David Cunliffe, must have a really, really short memory. I have not been in this House very long, not as long as that particular member, but let me just mention one name: Mike Williams. Goodness me! Talking about Mike Williams, I do not really want to go into detail about Mike Williams, but it is like the pot calling the kettle black. It is as if appointing to certain boards members of the public who happen to belong to a certain political party never actually happened under Labour. Let me also remind that member of the name of a particular former Minister who took a very long time to be sacked: Taito Phillip Field. He actually got convicted and served time in prison. It is as if the transparency and the standard that Labour is hoping for is a Government led by David Shearer as Prime Minister. Really?

Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition last week talking about the aspirations for New Zealand? He wanted New Zealand to be like Finland. He wants a brighter future, but he actually wants to compare New Zealand to Finland. I am a little bit confused. Finland in the OECD’s Your Better Life Index is lower. New Zealand actually surpasses Finland in that particular index. Does that actually mean that the Labour leader, David Shearer, actually wants New Zealand to have a lower standard of living? Is that the brighter future that David Shearer is actually hoping for? And is that why the two Davids, the two front-benchers, plus Grant Robertson have big smiles on their faces—smiling like the Cheshire cat, hoping that he is going to stumble and actually make that kind of mistake again. Let us actually have a look at Finland again. Earlier some National members talked about that. We have more consistent growth compared with Finland. We actually have lower unemployment than Finland. We actually have lower inflation than Finland. We actually have better food and agriculture than Finland. We actually have fewer male deaths compared with Finland, and we actually have lower homicide rates compared with Finland. We have much higher economic freedom than Finland as well.

In the last 3 years, the National-led Government has actually managed New Zealand’s economy well. How do we know that? Because the voters in the 2011 general election voted for a National-led Government once again. New Zealand overwhelmingly voted for National because New Zealand voters are not stupid. If they did not do well and if National was not going to be a safe hand in managing the New Zealand economy and the Government and all of its portfolios, the New Zealand public would not have voted for National once again. Some people might say that the New Zealand public voted for National members because they are good looking, or they are articulate, or whatever. But let me tell you a lot of people in New Zealand want New Zealand to do better. The economic well-being of this country, especially in the very difficult and tough economic times that we have had to go through, is one of the reasons why New Zealanders voted in large numbers for National, and I think we are very lucky that New Zealanders actually think with that perspective.

In the next 3 years, this Government is focused on making our country more competitive so that it can fulfil more of our potential as a nation, and we want to keep our promise to New Zealanders. One of the ways that we are doing that is by way of improving the welfare system, and spending $8 billion and having 351,000 people on the benefit is not the way to go.

There are times when you wait in this debate for an enlightened contribution, but unfortunately that was not one of them. Did we hear about the per capita GDP of Finland? Oh, no—cannot mention those facts. Or the total GDP per capita compared with Finland’s? No comment about that. Or the take-home pay of the Finnish people compared with New Zealand’s? No, that member could not mention that because that is a comparison that National members cannot even stand up against.

But our Government has a Cabinet Manual. Clearly Merrill Lynch never did. And all over New Zealand there was a huge sigh from local government at 2 o’clock this afternoon. There was a massive sigh from local government all around this country. But if the Prime Minister and Nick Smith think that they have dodged the bullets over the ACC dispute or debate, then we have got news for them, and it is all bad. We want to know the facts behind this.

We remember that John Key said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers.” If those are high standards, then you could parachute them out the backside of a rabbit. That is what you could do with them. He said: ‘I expect high standards.” That was his boast. If any member of Parliament from another party had written as a Minister a letter on ministerial letterhead like this, National members would be screaming for blood. But there they sit, all mute, on the backbench, hoping: “Well, Nick’s gone; maybe they will put me there.” You can see the egregious, self-centred concern they have, not for Nick. They remind me of the Highveld in Africa, where there are a whole lot of animals grazing there, and out of the long grass comes this lion. And they all run like nobody’s business to get out of the way. But as soon as the lion gets the first one, they all stop and start grazing. That is the National Party. That is the National Party. They emulate and resemble nature.

The Prime Minister, Mr Key, knew about this case. My question is: when did he know and how much did he know? That is where this issue is going now. He can think he can hide behind the second letter, pulled out from 2010 as being the second unforgivable sin—not the one just last year. The unforgivable one was the one in 2010, which we did not know about. We want to see all the emails, all the texts, between Miss Pullar and Nick Smith.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Were there any photographs?

Well, there may be photographs. I am not pushing it too far, because we are going from what we know, and we are not going to speculate on what we do not know.

Let me make it very, very clear. What did the Prime Minister do about it when he knew? He knew, for example, that Miss Pullar was putting pressure on Nick Smith. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing. Did he advise Nick Smith as to what should be done? Did he advise any of his other colleagues? He knew what was going on. Take former party president, Michelle Boag. Why was she involved? Why was this woman involved? She is someone who got lined up at court for trying to pervert the course of justice—do you remember—in a massive commission of inquiry. And she got fined for it. Nothing—no problem for the National Party. Talk about standards! They have not got any.

Today we learnt about the second error, the letter of 2010. You know something? This is not going to be a Pansy Wong situation, where she jumped ship and said: “Look, I’m resigning. I’m coming home, Sammy.” Oh, no. We know that there was a lot behind the Pansy Wong story, which goes all the way to a former National Prime Minister—and they know as well. The problem with this Government is it did not press on and it should have. In this case, we are. We are going to find out what it knew, when it knew, and what it did not do about it when it should have acted.

Why did the Prime Minister not instruct his Minister to tell Miss Pullar to go and get help somewhere else? Why did he not do that? The issue is not a case for the Privacy Commissioner—[Interruption] Pardon?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: We want to know.

Because he thought he could slide by and none of us would know. But unfortunately this is a small country, and the National members are now finding out again what they should have acted on when they first knew.

It is not a case for the Privacy Commissioner any more. This goes to the quality and transparency of Government.

Gloating, as the Hon Tau Henare has noted, is never an attractive option, yet despite some pretty cute attempts from some of the speakers opposite today, that is exactly what they have been doing. It began with Grant Robertson, it continued with Chris Hipkins, it became particularly odious under David Cunliffe, and now we have just had it from the 35th member of the Labour Party caucus, Winston Peters. Revelling in another’s misfortune, when that person has acted honourably—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a debatable issue, because we had an election. There is no 35th member of the Labour Party caucus.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’s a proud party called New Zealand First.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—that is not a point of order.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to advise the member that apparently not even the Labour Party caucus wants him, either. But I want to say that revelling in another’s misfortune, when that person has acted honourably—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member has been in the Parliament now for, I think—

💬 Hon Members: 3 years.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Three years? Sorry, I thought he was new—a number of months, anyway. He should know by now, Mr Assistant Speaker, that he must not comment on your very wise rulings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly correct, Mr Mallard. I was actually thinking of frivolous interjections, but you are right.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think Mr Mallard is well aware of what he was attempting to do there, and I think it is unfortunate that he wanted to interrupt me when I was making the point about the courage of the Minister, who, unfortunately, has resigned today. I simply want to say that I am very proud to be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member cannot refer to the courage of members. It can be seen as a personal reflection under Standing Order 117.

The Minister has acted with dignity, and I am very proud to be his colleague. I send my best wishes to Nick and his family at this time.

I am also proud to be a member of a very busy, focused, and effective Government. New Zealanders’ enthusiasm for our Labour opponents’ policies is currently about as warm as the climate in Mr Shearer’s beloved Finland at this time of the year. Understandably, given the overwhelming rejection Labour received from New Zealanders just a few months ago, it is now licking its wounds and wondering how it can reconnect with the electorate. Well, nothing Labour members have said or done to date, and certainly not in today’s general debate, indicates that they have a clue.

Yesterday during question time we heard from the member for Rimutaka, who enjoyed his own contribution in inverse proportion to the rest of his audience. We heard an attempt to ridicule this Government and our Ministers—wait for it—for having a series of plans. “Far too many plans”, he spluttered.

💬 Hon Annette King: No, he didn’t.

Yes, he did, Ms King. He read out a whole lot of plans and strategies, yet this was the same Mr Hipkins who, along with his colleagues, half of whom are now pursuing other career opportunities, repeatedly bleated during the previous 3 years: “Where’s the plan? The Government hasn’t got a plan.” And every time they were told the plan they feigned an inability to understand it. Well, perhaps they were not feigning it.

They are leaderless and directionless, and their demeanour indicates, as do their statements, that they are hopeless. In stark contrast, the National-led Government is forging ahead with a visionary and appropriate programme to steer our country through very difficult times. We have a widely respected Prime Minister, a talented and united ministry, and a busy caucus blending industry and experience with a superb group of new MPs, who demonstrate that the National Party is in excellent shape and clearly is the right team in the right place at the right time. I want to congratulate my new caucus colleagues—one of whom, Ms Barry, is sitting just in front of me—on their superb maiden speeches, delivered in this House just a few weeks ago.

There is strong support in the Hamilton West electorate for the Government’s determination to rein in Government spending; encourage appropriate investment; deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health-care; facilitate economic growth; lift educational achievements for those who are struggling; and implement important reforms to deliver better local government and to get our economy into surplus. These are the issues that matter to New Zealand. They are all areas where our Government is making significant progress, notwithstanding the major problems we face—indeed, most countries face—at the present time in each and every one of them.

In the remaining time I want to focus on another major programme that we campaigned on last year and that we will begin to implement this month. In our previous term, despite vocal criticism from the depleted party opposite, the Government implemented the highly successful Future Focus programme to begin rebalancing our welfare system. The results to date have been very encouraging. Just by requiring people to reapply for the unemployment benefit after 1 year, so far 12,500 people have cancelled their benefit. Of that number, more than half did not even complete the application, and more than 3,300 of them had already found a job. As of last month, year 1 Future Focus results included 10,400 fewer New Zealanders being on welfare, while a further 2,300 people who were on the domestic purposes benefit—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Boring repetition.

—took up part-time work. Mr Mallard finds all this boring. Well, I think every one of these people will be delighted with those results, and we are certainly proud of them as a Government. Thirteen thousand went off the domestic purposes benefit into work, and 50 percent of beneficiaries did not require a single hardship benefit.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.