General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Government recently announced that we have a new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, the Hon Rick Barker, who has started or is about to start work on this portfolio. I think it is a pity that Mr Barker missed the launch this morning of the new report Counting for Something: Value Added By Voluntary Agencies. He would have learnt some new and interesting facts relevant to the portfolio for which he is now taking responsibility. For example, one of the report writers, Suzanne Snively from PricewaterhouseCoopers, told us that this study shows that just for the 10 organisations surveyed alone, 7.63 million voluntary hours were worked in one year, and that is probably an underestimate. These 7 million - plus hours are equivalent to over 4,000 full-time equivalent workers who, if part of the regular paid workforce, would be the equivalent of all New Zealand’s dairy industry employees or two-thirds of the staff of the Ministry of Social Development, our largest employer.

The value of the work being done by the 10 groups surveyed has been calculated, at a conservative estimate, at $126 million in 2002, but Ms Snively believes that if a comparable study were done of the whole voluntary sector in this country, the likely contribution to the economy would be in the region of $5 billion to $6 billion.

The reason I have brought this study to the attention of the House today is that at the same time as the fruit of this research is appearing, and at the same time as we have a new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, we also have before the House a Government bill that establishes a Charities Commission. The Charities Bill poses a serious threat to the very community and voluntary sector that Labour avows to support, and whose value is so amply demonstrated by the new study. Hundreds of groups from all parts of this sector have made submissions, asking the Government either to withdraw the Charities Bill altogether or to completely rewrite it, with full input from this sector, in a genuine consultation process, which never happened the first time around.

The Green Party supports their call. We believe that many features of the ill-conceived Charities Bill undermine the good work that this latest report so graphically illustrates in its findings. As the bill is written, following its strange genesis in Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development, it threatens the political autonomy of not-for-profit organisations, overloads them with compliance costs, and creates a chilling effect on the willingness of volunteers to serve on boards, at a time when it is already very difficult for many voluntary groups to get good board members who are willing to take the risk of taking on that onerous task.

The bill maintains a definition of “charity” that goes back to the beginning of the 17th century in England and does very little in practice to achieve one of the Government’s key original goals, I believe, of dealing with the problem of corrupt or fake charities. It also establishes a Charities Commission, which is to be fully funded by the community sector itself. It is a case of the Government once again soaking those who can least afford it with costs that similar bodies who support private sector endeavours are not expected to pay for themselves.

Now, while the Government is telling the sector at the moment that it is willing to listen to submitters and make changes to the Charities Bill—and I thank the Hon Dr Cullen for the comments he made just before—I quote again from a speech that the Hon Judith Tizard made this morning to the New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. She said: “It goes without saying that charities must not be political organisations. An organisation whose stated purposes include the attainment of a political purpose, cannot be a charity because its purposes must all be charitable.” In the light of the Hon Rick Barker’s reply to my question earlier on this afternoon that Judith Tizard did not make such a statement—despite the fact that the speech I have was given to me by a staff member from the Minister’s office—I invite Judith Tizard to make a personal statement to the House about the apparent contradiction between the official version of her speech and the denial by Mr Barker of what she said.

Community groups are the backbone of our democracy—and I am sure the Labour Party supports that proposition—but the Labour Government attempts to muzzle the voice of the community and voluntary sector at its peril. I call on the new Minister to challenge the rest of his caucus to pay attention to the Counting for Something report and to ditch the current Charities Bill completely in favour of legislation that protects the integrity of the community sector, protects its capacity to carry out political advocacy, honours all the work done—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

About 21 years ago I became a parliamentary candidate, and, on the very first day of canvassing for the then Hamilton West seat for which I was a candidate, Mike Moore came to the electorate. I think it was when he was about No. 3 in the Opposition, and he coined the term “Minogue burger”. A “Minogue burger” was half tongue and half chicken, and there were one or two interesting asides at the time. It made the first edition of the Waikato Times, but the second edition of the Waikato Times looked like one of those things from wartime. The paper had chipped out the offending paragraph, leaving a blank where it had appeared—which said something about the National Party’s relationship with the Waikato Times at that time.

Earlier in the year the term “Minogue burger” could have been applied to the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash. I think it would have been an appropriate label. There was a certain amount of hit-and-run about him, but I think the tongue has been taken out of the “Minogue burger”. The “Brash burger” has no tongue—he has lost his tongue and he will not come here—and it is just a chicken burger. The “Brash burger” is a chicken burger. He will not come to the House and he will not comment.

We have now had 2 days this week when there was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question, or even a supplementary question, and what happened?

Gerry Brownlee: We should be factual about matters in this House, and, to help the member speaking, I seek leave to table the Hansard of Tuesday’s question time, when Dr Brash made it very clear to the whole nation that Mr Hawkins was about to get the chop from Cabinet.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that is a debating point.

Simon Power: The member sought leave to table the Hansard.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, the member sought leave to table the Hansard. Is there any objection? There is.

Jim Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not quite sure what path the Minister is going down, but may I assert to you that if the Minister is suggesting that Mike Minogue, a past member of this House, was guilty of cowardice—because the Minister used the word “chicken”—then that is not appropriate at this time and it should be withdrawn. With regard to this “Minogue burger” to which he applied the word “half chicken”, I believe that is an unfortunate and disparaging comment upon an excellent past member of this House, and, not least, for Hamilton.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is part of robust debate.

Jim Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention that in any section of the community or society where the word “chicken” is used, it implies cowardice. If that term is acceptable in this House, I suggest strongly that it is not appropriate—

Clayton Cosgrove: He means a burger.

Jim Peters: This is a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I give a final warning today that when a member is on his or her feet with a point of order there will be silence. That is the one and only warning.

Jim Peters: I suggest that if that is not so and there was no implication that Michael Minogue was in any way lacking in courage, then that should be made clear by the Minister; otherwise, I ask that he withdraw his comment.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I consider it a matter of debate. It is a matter of taste.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The point I was coming to is that we are waiting for Dr Brash to come to this House and engage with the Prime Minister. We are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition at least to pretend that he has the backbone to take the battle to the Prime Minister. Will he have the courage of his convictions, a view, a difference, some strength, a bit of energy? Is he awake? We are looking for some evidence that we have a live Leader of the Opposition. No evidence of that has been given to the House in recent times. What does he do? He goes around running down New Zealand. He runs down our education system. He says that our literacy is worse than that of the United States, when the Programme for International Student Assessment shows that we are third and the United States is 16th. He says that 25 percent of New Zealand school leavers are illiterate, when the evidence is quite clear that that is not true.

What I do want to say is that I welcome the comments made by Bill English, a person of integrity, a person who was knifed by Dr Brash, a person who says that after 20 years on literacy, finally a Government has got it right. It takes some courage to make that sort of comment, and I am pleased that the previous Leader of the Opposition has the courage to praise the Government in this way. I ask that at some stage he brief the current leader so that he gets a bit of an ounce of the material that has caused Bill English to make those positive comments.

I also want to comment on ACT and to give its members my condolences. I think it is sad. I think they all know now that they made a mistake in the appointment of Rodney Hide as their leader. In the end, it was Mr Eckhoff who was responsible for that.

Hon Mark Gosche: Rodney who?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is a point. He did not even get the dead-cat bounce that Don Brash got for a period of time. I appreciate the problem and I ask Rodney Hide when he is going to put a circular around the Epsom electorate telling it that he would abolish the Auckland Grammar zone. When will he do that?

That was a rather sad speech from the almost-departed Minister of Education. Those of us who have been around Parliament any length of time know that the Labour Party announces its reshuffles through the news media. It is the way that the Labour leader softens people up for the fact that they are moving on. It was reported to the Dominion Post by usually very well-informed sources that the Minister of Education had alienated some in the sector. I have news: he has alienated everybody in the sector.

Trevor Mallard is a sitting duck for the police portfolio. He is going into the police portfolio, because the Prime Minister picked up the phone, and we see on the front page of the Dominion Post that it is “Goodbye George Hawkins!”. As he was mired in the mess of the leaky homes crisis, a correspondent wrote in the New Zealand Herald that Mr Hawkins’ handling had “clearly left the whiff of incompetence wafting around his office”. Well, I can report that the stench of political death is seeping from that office. As this Parliament speaks, the stench of political death is oozing from the office of the Minister of Police, because he is a Minister who, in his long parliamentary career, has delivered something memorable for the people of his own electorate.

John Key: What’s that?

Hon TONY RYALL: The worst crime rate of any part of this country. This Minister’s administration—maladministration—of the police portfolio, together with the incompetent administration of the Minister for Courts and the Minister of Corrections, are seeing the unbelievable situation we have today where up and down this country remand prisoners are being held in police and court cells. We heard today that at the Manukau District Court yesterday there was a near-riot by remand inmates who were jam-packed into a cell. Although that in itself might not worry people, this Government’s misadministration of the corrections system should worry them. The Government has known about this situation for months. Police officers’ personal safety is at risk. In newspapers around this country, senior police officers are warning that violence is a possible consequence of this Government’s handling of the overcrowding in prisons.

This Minister of Police is on the way out, and he deserves to be. It will be sad for him to have to leave what has been a passion for him, but his competence is something that this Government will have difficulty in matching. The Prime Minister is trying to delay the inevitable as she seeks to find enough competent Ministers to do the hard jobs. But she still wants to keep Phil Goff in his place, because she knows who will replace her when she loses the next general election.

Police stations up and down this country are losing their frontline officers, who have to guard remand inmates who are being held not only in police cells but also in court cells. The prisons are overflowing. Where will the Government put the inmates when all the police cells, court cells, and prisons are full? This Government is running out of space, it is running out of ideas, and it is running out of credibility.

We have the pathetic sight of the soon-to-be-gone Minister of Education—there will be no more school library openings for him—saying: “Why won’t Dr Brash ask the Prime Minister a question?”. Well, he asked a question yesterday, and the Prime Minister could not answer it. What is more, it was one of the leading news items on TV3. The whole country saw Dr Brash wipe the floor of this House with the Prime Minister. He asked her whether she would assure Mr Hawkins of his ministerial warrant as long as she was able to grant one. What did the Prime Minister say? She would not answer at all.

That was a very rich speech, coming from Tony Ryall. He gets up in this House and complains about the numbers of people who are locked up in prisons, police cells, and court cells, and asks where those people will go when those cells are full. Well, when the National Party announced its policy of having more prisons, the first thing Tony Ryall did was to campaign that they not be in his electorate. That is the truth of it. “Anywhere but here.”, says Tony Ryall. The speech he just made was the most shallow speech we have heard from the National Party. But that is not unusual.

The first point that needs to be made is where is the leadership of the National Party. I want to know why Don Brash is not here taking the lead for the National Party in the Wednesday debate. Why was he not here today asking questions?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he is not allowed to refer to the absence of members. He will desist.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to clarify your ruling. I think the Minister might have made a mistake when he said that Don Brash was not “here” to take the lead, but it is appropriate for him to say that he is not taking the lead in this debate.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member clearly made a reference to his not being here.

Hon RICK BARKER: I stand corrected. The point is that Dr Don Brash is not leading the debate this afternoon for the National Party. Neither was he leading question time for the National Party. It is quite obvious that the leadership of the National Party is absent. It seems that the National Party leadership has pressed the mute button, not the play button.

Don Brash is a leader who does not understand leadership. The first point about leadership is loyalty. Every Kiwi understands the nature of loyalty—loyalty to family, loyalty to friends, loyalty to soccer teams. One thing Kiwis understand is that when we go overseas we are loyal to our country. We are proud Kiwis, and to hear Don Brash in Australia bagging New Zealand to Australians is the worst insult of all. Had he gone to Russia or somewhere like that, probably we would not have cared quite so much, but the Aussies always try to put down their Kiwi cousins, and the one place where Kiwis should not bag New Zealand is Australia. Don Brash does not understand about loyalty; that is quite obvious, because he is not loyal to New Zealand. But also he does not understand other issues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that, as much as the concept appeals to me, the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is not loyal to New Zealand should be ruled out of order. Although none of his members will defend him, I will. I think that remark should be ruled out of order.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that remark.

Hon RICK BARKER: I withdraw. The second thing that is causing Mr Brash some concern is the fractious nature and the quality of his members. It was interesting to have a report from a business meeting in Auckland at which Mr Don Brash was speaking. He was asked whether he had any worries or concerns about the quality or the depth of the talent in his team. He said quite candidly “Yes.”, but when he was kicked in the shins by his minder, Richard Long, he suddenly changed his point of view. Of course he has concerns about the quality of his team. Simon Power, who was the National Party’s spokesperson on defence, and who sometimes asks questions or makes comments in the House to the tune of “Yankee Doodle Dandy”, had a glittering career until he said that New Zealand should follow the USA, the UK, or Australia without hesitation. He got dumped for it. He did not appreciate that New Zealanders support the notion of independence. We are a proud nation. We are a nation of proud, independent Kiwis and we will not have our decisions made by other people.

The person who was most happy about that was John Key—the emerging leader in the jostle. John Key will watch with great interest the demise of Bill English. Bill English is trying to come back again, like a soufflé rising twice. He decided to have a go with a Winston Peters’ style of mini - wine box issue. He had all these secrets, but, unlike Winston Peters, he did not hold on to them for as long. Sadly for him, he had exactly the same result as Winston Peters did—there was nothing of merit in the box, at all. He was completely wrong. It was embarrassing for Bill English and embarrassing for the rat pack, but it was very comforting for Don Brash. However, it confirms Don Brash’s problem: he does not have any talent.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But he read it.

Hon RICK BARKER: We have this chip from the backseats now, from the member for Nelson. In my view, he has no credibility. He fronted up to court, and what did it find? It did not accept his word. Nobody else in this House has that dubious distinction.

The key issue here is leadership, and Dr Don Brash simply does not have it. The National Party used to have a lot of strong leaders. It had Muldoon, who always led from the front. Even Jim Bolger led from the front, as did Jenny Shipley—but not Don Brash.

One of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of nature. It takes care of itself, and we can see it in operation any day we look at the animal kingdom. A herd of zebras stays together as a pack and moves together as a pack to protect each other, but every so often one of the animals slips, due to sickness, injury, or for whatever reason. It starts to lag to the back of the herd, and that is when the hyenas, the lions, and the jackals start to move.

Now, there is not one member of this House who can counter the laws of nature and, sadly, we are seeing them unfold before our eyes in this House in the last few days. My colleague Tony Ryall is right. We do not get journalists in the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald speculating on ministerial demise just by chance—“I think today I will go with …”. Of course, they do not.

We all know how it works. In this case, the Prime Minister is really good at it: she has the speed dials loaded up, she calls the journalists, and she says: “Look! I need to start some softening up here. I’ve got to get rid of an incompetent Minister or two, and move a couple of people who are alienating—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Me—incompetent!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am not suggesting that Trevor Mallard is incompetent, but I am saying that he has hugely alienated his sector and he will have to be moved into some other area. I think that the police portfolio is probably ideal for him.

But what is absolutely tragic in this House is to sit here day after day listening to George Hawkins answering questions. What is even sadder is to watch his own colleagues, their heads in their hands, looking at the floor in embarrassment. George Hawkins is actually quite good with his first answer, because it is written down. He knows the question. His officials would all get together. I am sure Mr Mallard and Dr Cullen get together before question time and say: “Right, Mr Hawkins, here’s your answer. Read it out.”

Simon Power: As well as “Swainy”!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, “Swainy” helps him, as well. But Mr Hawkins does not even do that very well; on a number of occasions even his reading out of the fixed answer is botched and a mess. But when he gets on to the supplementaries and does not know what the question will be or what people will ask him, then it becomes enormously embarrassing.

A new phrase came into the vocabulary of New Zealand quite recently called a “Parakurism”. That phrase was used by the media to refer to comments that the Minister of Māori Affairs made that were nonsensical and absolute garbage. Well, I tell members that his comments have been gazumped by “Hawkisms”. We have no clue what the Minister of Police, the Minister of Internal Affairs—or the Minister of whatever other portfolios he either has or does not have—will say, because he does not know when he answers questions. He keeps saying: “No, that’s another Minister.”, but then it turns out that it is not.

I have been going through the Hansard and I have seen that his answers are embarrassing. He says things like: “The member might say that but, frankly, that won’t be completed until it’s finished.” And then he sits down. We ask what it means but it is a “Hawkism”—that is, it will not be completed until it is finished. Is that not great? We see Labour MPs’ heads going into their hands and hear them saying: “Oh, no.”

There is a United Nations charter against cruel and unusual punishment. The Prime Minister has to stop this now. She has been on a track where there are still a few more days on the calendar before she finally brings the axe down. She has got about three more speed-dial calls to make for three more journalists to do a little bit more putting the boot in. Well, I say that the Prime Minister should stop it. This country cannot go on with a Minister of Police whose only claim to fame in his whole time is that he plays with toy police cars. He decided what coloured spots the cars would have. He was very proud. The colour was something like ecclesiastic orange that was to be painted—

Simon Power: Angelic orange.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: My colleagues tell me it was angelic orange. That is the Minister’s entire claim to fame. If we read all of the other logs from the media about what this Minister of Police has done, we can see that he is just a disaster. Fran Mold wrote in the New Zealand Herald that he “left the whiff of incompetence wafting around his office.” I think she is wrong. There is no longer a whiff; it is a stench, so strong that other people cannot even stay there. The Government cannot have a Minister of Police engendering any confidence in the public who looks like the picture I have here: Mr Hawkins is not even wearing a baseball cap. Trevor Mallard would look good in a baseball cap, and I think he would also be able to play with toy cars quite well.

I think it is fair to say that the member who has just resumed his seat has a lot of friends in this House, but none of them are in the National caucus. That member has spent the last 6 months white-anting his own caucus—and he has the temerity to give us a lecture about caucus solidarity! That is why he was dumped to become the lowest-ranked member of his caucus—or maybe it was the fact that he has the habit of leaving his confidential papers on planes and in hotel rooms all around Australia.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That was a long time ago.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: My colleague tells me that that was a long time ago. That was about as good as the leader of the National Party shooting a red light to get to the Bledisloe Cup, and then rooting for the Wallabies. That is how patriotic that leader is, and that is what Kiwis have come to expect of him. Is the soufflé rising twice? Don Brash should be so lucky! The reality is that the National caucus is again in turmoil. National members have been here in the House long enough, goodness knows, to smell death in the air. We can smell death around Don Brash. Yesterday he said he would not run again if he loses at the next election. Why did he say that? It is because he knows he will be dumped, so he thought he may as well clear up the confusion in advance.

What further news do we have today? In contrast with John Key’s announcement a week ago that if National was in Government he would raise the top tax threshold to give a tax cut to rich people, today Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed the Government’s fiscal strategy and our AA+ rating, and stated: “It is hard to see New Zealand’s top rating coming under any pressure any time soon. Indeed, credit quality could strengthen as long as cross-party support for fiscal restraint is maintained through the coming electoral cycle.” John Key should take note of that. I think something else is going wrong with regard to National’s tax strategy, and it reminds me of 1989. Do members remember 1989-90, when Jim Bolger was a kind of new, caring conservative? He was to be a new kind of National leader, and there were to be no more tax cuts for the rich if he got in. What happened a year later? We had the “mother of all Budgets”, with savage cuts to benefits, stupid privatisations, and the worst policy-induced recession this country has ever known.

National members are simply wolves in sheeps’ clothing and the sheeps’ clothing is already wearing thin. What could one do with $160 million, which is what the change in tax threshold that John Key has suggested would cost? One could cancel all free early childhood education, sack nearly 3,000 schoolteachers, give no increase in school funding until 2009, kick 21,000 university students out of tertiary education, remove all 6,500 Modern Apprentices or all 127,000 industry trainees, take out special education or school transport, scrap primary health care, scrap the cheaper doctors’ visits that we have just brought in, or scrap the hip and knee operations for 4,600 New Zealanders.

The Opposition has not got the message. New Zealanders do not want to have a cheap, heartless Government that reinforces privilege. They want to have the kind of Government that they get from this team, which is about all New Zealanders getting access to the health care, the education, and the basic services that they deserve. What counts for us is not the size of the silver spoon that people were born with. I personally have heard John Key’s story about growing up in a State house just one time too many to believe it. Let us hear about the house that Merrill Lynch built. But that is not the issue; the issue is that all Kiwis deserve a fair thing. They know a fair thing when they see it, and they know it is not about Don Brash attacking his own country in the Australian Financial Review. That is why National has big problems. That is why we do not see a happy caucus when we look across the House. There is Brian Connell facing another 4 years in Opposition and Simon Power thinking that at least he made the right decision not to run for leader last time, because it was a temporary thing. Simon Power is the only guy looking relieved, as he gets into his new whip duties. He will have a little sojourn on the mid-benches.

The previous speaker always sounds to me as though he has been suffering from the wrath of grapes—hung out like George Hawkins, or hung-over. That is an absolute certainty. May I paraphrase, just briefly, a verse from “Alice in Wonderland”.

“The time has come, Walrus,”

The Prime Minister said,

“To speak of many things

Like your job, George.”

The Prime Minister has said to George Hawkins that he is on his way out—he is history; it is all over. He should hand in his warrant—his licence. It is all over bar the shouting, for that Minister.

I wanted to speak not about George Hawkins but about something that is actually quite serious to every New Zealander: the attack by this socialist Government on the property rights of every New Zealander in this country—and I emphasise the words “every New Zealander”. It does not matter what one’s race, colour, or creed is; the Government is determined to attack one’s property rights. It is determined to cast aside the conventions in the laws over things like access to private property, and indeed, even to cast aside the property rights of Māori, which it has been attempting—as have previous Governments, of course—to settle. Any one of us can go to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and witness the debacle and emotion of New Zealanders—not because they are Māori, although they do happen to be Māori. I am talking about New Zealanders who front up every time, in huge numbers, and almost beg the Labour Government for the right to be heard about what they think is important, and know is important, to them—their property rights. Since 1840 Māori have lost much of their land to successive Governments; I cannot blame any one particular Government for that. At last now there has been some redress for Māori, only for them to find that this Labour Government, which has been backed in the past by Māori, is walking away from its commitments to that concept of property rights.

Now the Government is attacking the property rights of rural New Zealanders, and those who live in peri-urban New Zealand. They will be not immune at all from that attack. Those who live in Mr Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate, where a river runs through, will be forced to accept public access through their private property once this Government finalises its plans, which are due in early December. There will be outrage right throughout the country when everybody understands how significant the abuse will be. Let me just read the Treasury report on the proposal from Minister Jim Sutton and the Government. Treasury states: “We do not agree with the argument that access and ownership are easily separated, as indicated. In fact, this is not really about either access or ownership per se; it is about property rights.” Treasury goes on to state: “Any proposal regarding the provision of some form of access over private property involves changing rights, and as a result has the potential to create winners and losers.” That is exactly what Robert Mugabe is doing, and he is doing it with enormous success. I can only assume that Jim Sutton and the Prime Minister are emailing Robert Mugabe on a regular basis, and asking him how the process is going. They will want to know how successful he is, because they want to do the same thing to their people. They want to steal the property rights of New Zealanders, by taking them from the politically weak and giving them to the numerically strong.

That is exactly the principle behind the change that this Government is trying to drive through to the ordinary New Zealander. The Government has yet to understand the significance and the emotion that that concept will generate right throughout this country. We are seeing it at the select committee meetings, where New Zealanders are in tears.

I rise to talk about two issues that are related: inmate numbers, and the absurdity of the recent awards of compensation to the so-called mistreated criminals. But before I do that, I want to say how disappointed I am in hearing members of the Government, Trevor Mallard, Rick Barker, and David Cunliffe basically express their consternation at National. One knows that there is a shift in the gravitas in the House when those members spend all their time rebuking the Opposition, rather than bragging about themselves.

Hon David Cunliffe: We always do that. We have been bagging them for 5 years!

MARC ALEXANDER: Well, at least members should be creative and humorous about it. That was a pathetic attempt. It was a display of stupidity on the part of all three members, and it was ridiculous.

I want to get on to talk about the substance of why I rose. The first issue is about inmate numbers. We have heard a lot of incredible absurdity from this Government with regard to that issue, following the allegations against it of mismanaging its prison portfolio. Clearly that is absolutely the case, because the substance of the accusation seems to be—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that my honourable friend from the United Future party does not need my assistance on this issue, but I am having difficulty in hearing the member’s contribution. He is not known for his light voice, but could I just point out to you that the Hon David Cunliffe has shifted from his usual seat, and continues to interject on this member while he tries to make a contribution to this House. I ask you to bring that Minister to order.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, there has been a number of—

Simon Power: But he has moved from his seat.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I tell Mr Power that I am speaking, and I will be the judge on interjections.

MARC ALEXANDER: The substance of the accusations against this Government when it comes to mismanaging the prison portfolio relies on prison musters, tougher sentencing—so called—and police success. In fact, I quote something from Minister Swain who said that there was a prediction of 7,000 inmates by the year 2008, and then he said that figure was, in fact, reached by 2004 because of the Government’s tough law and order stance. That is absolute rubbish.

In fact, as early as 1998 the Department of Corrections briefing anticipated that there would be a large increase in prison numbers. The department also anticipated at that time that Northland prison would be operational by 2002, that a new Auckland women’s prison would supposedly be up and running by last year, that a replacement prison in Dunedin would open this year, and that in the future an East Coast prison would be open by the year 2009. The reason why the three prisons have not been opened and are not operational is precisely the mismanagement of the Department of Corrections by this Government. The bottom line is that this Government did not anticipate a rise in the prison muster. It mismanaged the prison building programme, and is now taking police off the front line to fill the gaps. Where have we heard that one before? The fact is that over 200 inmates a night are now locked in police and court cells as a direct result of the mismanagement by this Government, with probably more claims to come of the so-called mistreatment and abuse of prisoners, and I will get to that shortly.

The reply was interesting when I asked a question earlier today about a number of bills that are coming through the pipeline, including the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). All those measures will increase custodial sentences, and raise the possibility of an even bigger increase in the number of remand and sentenced prisoners who are detained in police cells. The Minister effectively turned around and said that the problems were only short term. The situation could have been anticipated—and was anticipated—but nothing was done about it. It is absolute bollocks for this Government to try to claim that the mismanagement could not have been understood and appreciated beforehand. Considering that the new prison capacity is still a way off, that must contradict the assertion that there will be longer and tougher sentencing. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it is anticipating tougher sentencing, fail to provide adequate facilities to house the increased number of prisoners, and then turn around and say the problem was not anticipated. What a load of rubbish that is! When the fact is put into the mix that 35,000 cases have yet to go to court, and some of those involve people on remand, how could this Government not have known of the increase in the number?

One thing that really strikes me and, I suppose, galls a lot of New Zealanders is the fact that earlier this week we found out that a number of prison inmates have made successful claims for compensation for so-called brutality. The fact is that one of those inmates was serving a life sentence for murder, and another was serving a total term of imprisonment of 17 years for serious violent offences, including aggravated robbery and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The remaining three inmates were serving sentences of between 6 years, 3 months, and 3 years 9 months for a range of violent and other offences. Two of those inmates had convictions for aggravated assault against staff of the Department of Corrections, and the department had no choice but to put them in segregation.

The case of Phillip Edwards and David McNee gets murkier and murkier. Sadly, it smacks of all the signs of incompetence that we have become used to seeing from the Minister of Police and this Government when it comes to enforcing the law. It is time that the full truth of this case is brought out in the open, so that the people of New Zealand can learn why certain facts were concealed from the High Court jury, and who was responsible for making the decision not to prosecute Mr Edwards in the case of events at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue. McNee and Edwards knew each other before the fatal attack on Mr McNee. Edwards had been seen driving McNee’s car in Kaikohe, and they had been seen in Auckland gay bars together. That has been confirmed by sources outside this House. Those facts did not come out in the High Court, and we are asking why that was. Who made the decision to keep those very important facts secret from the jury?

Hon Mark Gosche: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that earlier this afternoon the Speaker made a ruling in the House about this matter being sub judice. The Speaker said that because of the word “sentence” in Standing Order 112(2) referring to the case was ruled out of order, because the case was sub judice. I wonder whether the member should bear that in mind in his speech.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. He is correct. The Speaker did rule in terms of Standing Order 112(2), which states: “Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence has been announced or judgment given.” The sentence has not yet been given. I would caution the member on that.

RON MARK: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I was not here this afternoon during question time in the House. Is it not interesting that that Minister of Police made a highly charged political speech to senior officers in the Christchurch police station, and criticised myself and the New Zealand First Party for not having the facts right? One member of this House went on in that same meeting to say that the only source that Ron Mark had was Worcester sauce. Well, this Worcester sauce is a little too hot for him right now. That is why this Government wants to hide behind such points of order, but the facts will come out in time.

Right now I will talk about Mr Shaw. The question is why Mr Edwards was not prosecuted for what the police have now confirmed was a violent attack on Mr Shaw in his home. People are saying that had the charge for that attack been laid, Mr Edwards would probably be in jail and would not have gone on to commit the further crime for which he has just been convicted.

Hon Mark Gosche: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is running a fine line here. He is continuing to refer to the case. I was listening carefully then. The member needs to be careful. I have ruled on it. He must not refer to the case that has been in court.

RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I am getting a little concerned that points of order may be taken just to interject on my speech on issues that the Government is very sensitive about. However, I am talking about the case that never ever got to court. [Interruption] Thank you. The point is this: why did that case not get to court? We now know—the police have now conceded this—that a violent crime took place at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue, which is in the Prime Minister’s own electorate. She said so in this House. This Government has been very big on the issue of clamping down on domestic violence, on crimes of violence, and on physical assaults. It has proudly boasted that it has been able to secure convictions on DNA evidence alone. Yet in this case, where there was a DNA strike and the police had identified the man who had committed the crime, no charge was laid.

My questions are these: why was Edwards not charged with assaulting Mr Shaw, and why was the file relating to the Shaw-Edwards incident stamped “Confidential. Not for Unauthorised Eyes”? Who made that decision, at what level was it made, and why was the decision as to whether to prosecute not left where it rightly belonged, which was in Avondale in Auckland? Why did people at national headquarters level get involved in that? Who did get involved in it, and why? People argue that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, and a serious undermining of the law and order process and of the judiciary. My next question is this: why did a police officer threaten a journalist from 20/20? Some would say that that is the very sort of thing Robert Mugabe may do. The Minister himself stood in the House and said that he did not do that sort of thing—namely, get into files—which is the sort of thing that Robert Mugabe does. On the other hand, we have written evidence tabled in this House that a police officer threatened a journalist and a programme. Why? Why does this Government ignore all that, and say nothing?

I shall pose a suggestion. There is a very serious fear in the community that the defence of homophobic panic will become an issue that people may play on. It seems to me that if the police do not prosecute cases that come before them to the fullest extent of the law, and if they do not investigate them to the fullest extent of their capability where they involve homosexuals per se, it may suggest that those people will be given a second-rate dose of the law and that they are not as important as other people. That is of concern, is it not?

Anybody unfortunate enough to listen to the Opposition speeches in this debate today would be wondering whether there is an Opposition in New Zealand. That is a very sad indictment. As we have heard today, opposition is a vital part of the democratic system of this country and many other democracies throughout the world.

Instead, we have the National Opposition members wailing and gnashing their teeth because the Government is locking up too many people. That is something that they pretend is a policy of theirs, and something that their leader, Dr Don Brash, made speeches about—but he has been strangely silent on it since—but the next word we get from National Opposition members is that the Government has had the audacity to lock up too many criminals for their taste!

I suppose that goes hand in hand with all the other contradictory statements. On the one hand Dr Brash says one thing about tax, and on the other his spokesperson on finance, who is languishing somewhere on the mid-to-back benches, is saying he would like to see the top tax rate bracket increased.

Then there is the National spokesperson on health. The New Zealand Herald did a poll asking people who was on the Auckland Regional Council. If one asked them who was in the National Party and what was the name of its spokesperson on health, one would get the same result: they would say they did not know. Who is the spokesperson on health for National? I inform anybody who is listening that it is Judith Collins. Judith Collins wants to revisit Dr Brash’s pledge to scrap primary health organisations, which are a very, very successful new initiative by this Government to allow New Zealanders to have better access to health care, and, in the longer term, to cut back the costs of the more expensive public hospital system. So Dr Brash is saying he will scrap them, and Judith Collins—whoever she may be—says maybe not.

Then, of course, there is Mr Bill English, who got it all wrong in his literacy policy. At least he recognises the fact that we have a literacy policy that is working and that has put New Zealand up there at No. 3. Dr Brash thinks we are down below No. 16.

What utter confusion there would be if one was trying to establish what that Opposition party’s policies were on anything! It reshuffles from time to time—probably every few weeks—and the poor members opposite end up in a job they do not want. Yesterday Dr Wayne Mapp paraded in the House his absolute lack of knowledge of industrial relations by saying that workers should not get days in lieu when they work on a public holiday, and that that was outrageous. The fact that it had been the law for 9 years of a National Government, which did not seek to change it and did not say it was wrong, shows us that Dr Mapp does not really have his heart in the job. And Simon Power, who was quoted in the paper the other day as saying: “I really do want to work on industrial relations. That’s my love.” is the whip! What a shambles! It is an absolute shambles of an Opposition. Any democracy—

Simon Power: Is that the best the member can do?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: It is so uninspiring over there. One likes to come to these debates and feel that there is somebody on the other side whose pulse one could take to prove that he or she was alive, but no. Even the ACT party, which is running around Auckland wanting to take its own pulse to see whether it is still alive, occasionally comes up with a decent debate in the House. New Zealand First scratches around a bit and occasionally hits the mark. But not the National Party.

Dr Brash is best at the art of opposition when he is in Australia bad-mouthing New Zealand, because there is nobody there to question him. The Aussies always like to knock us, and Dr Brash likes to join their national sport of knocking Kiwis, so he goes over there to practice the art of opposition. When he comes back he sits looking completely bemused, and cannot figure out why New Zealanders are insulted by a Opposition leader heading off shore to bag his own country. That is where he does it best.

There is certainly no evidence that he knows what he is doing in this House. He should take a lead from the Labour Party, which has introduced Modern Apprenticeships, where people learn on the job. People are taken on and told: “This is how you do it.” Mr McCully should have Dr Brash on a Modern Apprenticeship. He should say to him: “This is how Parliament works, Dr Brash.” Then he might actually be confused with a member of the Opposition and a leader.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek some clarification on the ruling you just gave. I point out that in the last 2 weeks the McNee case—for which a conviction has already been given, with only deliberation on the sentence to be made—has been discussed on and off throughout the House quite extensively. The Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt has not ruled out questions on that case. We have just had discussions on that to confirm it. Yesterday Mr Hunt did not rule out questions from Mr Peters about Mr McNee having known Mr Edwards for 3 years. He did not rule out the question about the fact that Mr McNee’s car had been stolen by Mr Edwards some 3 years prior to the offence. What that suggests is that my speech was curtailed, shortened, and truncated deliberately. I would like to see, from the Chair, if I may, the exact ruling of Mr Speaker Hunt today—his exact words—because what I have been subjected to does not reflect what has been happening in the House for the last 2 weeks, as far as I can see. Do we have one standard for Ron Mark and another standard for other members of Parliament? Am I to be treated as a lesser MP by the Chair itself? Or is it just another case of an attempt to cover up this case, because the Government has made such a hash of it?

I assure Mr Mark that his speech certainly was not curtailed deliberately. The point is that the Speaker this afternoon ruled that any discussion on this particular case did contravene Standing Order 112(2), because of the reference to the sentence. That was ruled this afternoon. What I was trying to do with the member’s speech was to watch where that impinged, because the member was speaking about both cases. I also say to Mr Mark that we are relitigating it now. But I assure him that his speech was not in any way deliberately curtailed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the point of order.

SIMON POWER: This is a new point of order. At the risk of prolonging the issue around interpretation of Standing Order 111, it is of some concern—or, at least, equivocation—that that Standing Order starts with the phrase “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker”, which lends some uncertainty to the way in which that particular Standing Order is applied in each factual situation that presents itself. That may go some way towards answering Mr Mark’s concern over the fact that questions about this issue had been allowed in question time—it seems that today in question time the Speaker exercised his discretion under Standing Order 111. What we would like to see is a clear ruling on that discretion and what it means for this ongoing issue before the House.

The Speaker did not use discretion this afternoon. He specifically referred to Standing Order 112(2), and specifically referred to the matter of sentence, because members had raised the point that this case was not now sub judice in that a decision had been given. However, the Speaker then ruled that Standing Order 112(2) does refer to the matter of sentence. Certainly, that is how the Speaker ruled this afternoon.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is quite right, but Standing Order 112 relates to the effect of Standing Order 111. In other words, if discretion is or is not exercised in respect of Standing Order 111 is when the ruling that Mr Speaker Hunt made today about whether Standing Order 112 applies comes into effect. But the question that I think Mr Mark was asking was whether the discretion under Standing Order 111 was exercised, thereby allowing Standing Order 112 to be applied, if you follow my logic.

I think the question is fair but the answer is clear. By definition of his ruling, clearly the Speaker did exercise his judgment and his discretion, and therefore Standing Order 112 does apply. But the member is quite correct in that Standing Order 111 is applicable, and it is subject to the discretion of the Speaker. But by definition the Speaker did exercise his discretion.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank Mr Power and Mr Burton. The purpose of the Standing Order is to avoid the House influencing court proceedings, as I am sure every member in this House knows.

If ever we wanted a better example of what a bunch of wallies the members opposite are, David Cunliffe gave it to us this afternoon. He got up and took a crack at my colleague Maurice Williamson, asserting that he left papers on an aeroplane when he was the Minister of Transport. I have done some research, and the person who did that was Bill Jeffries, the Labour Minister of Transport. That member came down to the House and apologised. Mr Cunliffe got it wrong. I can only explain it thus. I think that when he put his head in an oven and turned his hair blonde his brain was curdled. The man is absolutely stupid.

Talking of stupid, let us talk about George Hawkins. There is nothing sadder than seeing a Minister stabbed in the back by his own colleagues, or left to hang by his own devices as the members around him desert him like rats from a ship. How cruel and heartless Helen Clark is! It is apparent to everybody in this House that George Hawkins is the village idiot of the Labour Party, but is it not—

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is the matter of some decorum in this House. I have ignored the first three references made by that member, and I will not put them on the record. His opening sentence used a word—and you may have been distracted at the time—that was utterly inappropriate. That sort of language is just inappropriate.

BRIAN CONNELL: That is a debating issue, Madam Speaker. You already ruled on this when Mr Mallard was on his feet insulting people left, right, and centre. You said that was robust debate. The member may not like it, but I ask you to at least be consistent.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please continue.

BRIAN CONNELL: That member might want to come down to the House a bit sooner and listen to what is being said. It is clear that George Hawkins is not on top of his portfolios, and that fact was ruthlessly exposed yesterday by Katherine Rich. Katherine Rich exposed him because he did not know what he was responsible for. How humiliating it must be for George Hawkins to read in the paper that he will be fired. Even this Minister, I assume, has the intellect and the feelings to understand the impact of what he reads in the newspaper. It is a cold and black heart that can treat any member like that, let alone a colleague. I say to members in this House that if George Hawkins were a dog, then the SPCA would be banging on the Prime Minister’s door and charging her with cruelty to dumb animals. That is how bad it is. I would not treat my dog the way that George Hawkins is being treated by our Prime Minister at the moment. Yes, he should be fired because he is incompetent, but he deserves to be treated with some dignity, and he needs to be put out of his misery as soon as possible.

Yesterday the Prime Minister all but confirmed that Mr Hawkins is about to get the chop. Members will remember these words: “He is a conscientious and hard-working Minister.” They were the very words that the Prime Minister said about Lianne Dalziel just before she got the chop.

Ron Mark: And he’s loyal.

BRIAN CONNELL: That is the real reason that he will get the chop. That is how a loyal member is treated. Mr Hawkins came to the Law and Order Committee—Mr Mark will recall this—and he said: “I understand there is a problem in the Southern Communications Centre. The people down there are stressed and understaffed, and critical response times will be missed.” When he was quizzed as to whether he would do anything about it he said yes. I asked whether he had budgeted for any more staff and he said: “Ah, ah—no.” How many times do Dr Cullen and Trevor Mallard have to get up and try to protect this member? It is a hard job. Can they really see themselves supporting a member who is prepared to get dressed up and put a police cap on and be seen on national television playing with his toy police cars? And the Labour Party wants us to take him seriously! Not even the members opposite are trying to defend the guy because they know that the whiff and smell of death for George Hawkins is all but nigh. But, of course, the problem for the Prime Minister relates to who she can replace him with. Who else is operating at such a low level? Trevor Mallard is one candidate.

I do not think we all need to shout to get the message through. The right wing is in absolute turmoil yet again. It has no leadership, no policy, and definitely no commitment, whereas we are providing strong and stable leadership and building a strong and confident nation. The Leader of the Opposition is intent on pulling this country down here and overseas. He is already giving up, and so he should. It is a sign of absolute desperation when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Australia to bad-mouth New Zealand, and New Zealanders hate it. That will bounce back woefully on the Opposition in the election. The country feels it.

Not only does that leader lack leadership but his own members get things wrong. We have had Dr Brash saying he would abolish New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, Bill English getting it wrong on literacy, and Sandra Goudie saying there was conflict between the Kiwi Income Property Trust and Māori over the Resource Management Act up in Coromandel. I was in Coromandel on Friday. The people there loathed that the member for Coromandel had discredited Hauraki Plains College. They loathed that. Sandra Goudie has caused irreparable damage up there. It has ripped the National caucus apart. Dragging that college through the mud was an appalling thing to do. It really was.

There is not even a “Brash attack” going on now. He has puttered out completely. He creeps around this House like the phantom of politics—the “ghost who walks”, or slinks. Outside the House he fronts up quite a bit, but it is always to his own little colonial tea-party club. He cannot front up in the House. We all cringe when the Leader of the Opposition comes into the House. Even the Sunday Star-Times has noticed it. That newspaper has reported that he is in real trouble. It gave his performance on Tuesday two out of 10 and said that he was inert to the point of barely showing a pulse. The newspaper gave him seven out of 10 for Wednesday’s performance. That was quite good, but it reported that our Dr Cullen was overseas on that day, so Dr Brash had a bit of a crack at it. The next day he got four out of 10. It said he fails to make inroads and that Mr Prebble is better at making inroads in the House. I say he is absolutely hopeless at that.

I want to explore Dr Brash’s leadership on health, and his attitude towards Dr Lynda Scott. The health sector cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition got rid of Lynda Scott in his reshuffle. Dr Brash cannot explain his own reshuffle. He is totally confused and cannot even work out how to make sense of the ranking of the people on the front bench. Lynda Scott knows about health. The health sector knows that he dumped Lynda Scott because she could not get health made a high priority for National when it goes into the elections next year. That was an appalling decision. It shows us that behind his benign chipmunk smile is a set of vicious teeth. It is a set of teeth that Dr Brash will sink into anybody in his own party when he feels he needs to. He lost confidence in Dr Lynda Scott. He did not like her challenge—I admire her; of course health should be a high priority—so he replaced her with Judith Collins, who knows nothing about the health sector. The health sector knows that. Managers and clinicians know that fact already. They know he did not consider it a high priority. They know he has put Judith Collins in and they are most embarrassed about it.

All the Nats I know in health say that was an appalling decision. Why would he get rid of two doctors and put a lawyer in as the health spokesperson? Even the two doctors are fighting. Dr Paul Hutchison went to Queenstown and made up what he would do in regionalising district health boards. Judith Collins has already said that she refutes this as it is not National Party policy. They are fighting—where is the leadership?

The National Party has no understanding of how the health sector works, but the health sector remembers the horrible reforms of the 1990s. All it is asking for is that the sector be consolidated. This will be a technical blunder of the highest order in the elections next year. The sector does not want to go back to being driven by economics. It remembers that well and the National Party will fall flat on its face.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.