General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The prisoner’s dilemma that is the National Party is that leaving Don Brash where he is is necessary because its members cannot sort out amongst themselves who will succeed him. The end result of that dilemma is hilarious for this side of the House and downright embarrassing for those members who sit on the opposite side of the House. Dr Brash is not going to come right. He is not going to learn more by staying in the job longer. He will not progressively develop skills to become a good or a better leader. More experience will not sharpen the gentleman’s presentation. The gentleman has peaked. The bumbling has not reduced. The misjudgments are now as frequent as they ever have been. The passage of time has not made Dr Brash more modern, more hip, or more in touch. Instead, the passage of time has made Dr Brash older.

Winston Peters was right when 2 years ago he said that Dr Brash resembled a colonial tea planter. It is an image he cannot shake off, because it is true. This is the man who tried to squeeze an arthritic frame into a dodgem. This is the man who walked a plank with the grace of John Cleese, except that John Cleese hams it up when he does that sort of thing. Dr Brash does not have to ham it up—he looks funny without even trying. He really is like that. This is the man who says things that he must then recant, withdraw, reframe, deny.

Let us be reminded of the things the good Dr Brash has said. Let us remind ourselves that good Dr Brash said: “I don’t care who owns the schools.” Do members remember that? Or this one: “If I had been deciding, yes, New Zealand would have followed President Bush into Iraq.” That is what he said. Do members remember that one? Or this one—the well-known one: “Frankly, if I had had my way the nuclear legislation would be gone by lunchtime.”—“Gone by lunchtime, Dr Brash.” He is the guy who cannot stop blundering. He cannot stop saying things that do not go with the mainstream New Zealand viewpoint and that do not sit with the bedrock values of New Zealanders. This guy is so far out of touch he is stratospheric. This guy is so far out of touch that he is better off on a kiwifruit orchard than he is in the House, because he does not represent much at all in the House of Representatives.

There is more, of course. This is a 5-minute speech and we are surrounded by an embarrassment of riches, besides which we do have more recent examples. Last Friday will do. That was when Dr Brash gave a speech saying that new immigrants should share the bedrock values of New Zealanders. “Well what,” asked the media, nanoseconds later, “might these bedrock values be, and which immigrants don’t share them, Dr Brash?”. “Ah, well,” said Dr Brash, always eager to help, “the equal status of women is something that isn’t always shared by Muslims.” “And,” asked the media nanoseconds after that, “are those equal status of women bedrock values shared by the Exclusive Brethren?”. Those are the same Exclusive Brethren that Dr Brash had no second thoughts about relieving of $1.2 million worth of election activity and pretending for a week during the election that he had not even met them. It is predictable. The thing is that Dr Brash got into trouble during the election by saying he was in favour of mainstream, and someone asking: “What about the Exclusive Brethren?”. Within 9 months he is saying: “I’m in favour of bedrock values.”, and someone is asking: “What about the Exclusive Brethren?”. This guy does not learn. He will not get better. That is Dr Brash’s problem. He will not learn a lot more, because he has stopped learning. He does not, and he cannot, learn how to do better. He is already giving his National Party all he has to give, and it is not enough.

Members often hold differing views across this House—sometimes quite strongly differing views. But there is one matter on which, in all of the time I have been in this House, there has been complete unanimity. That matter is that New Zealand politics has always been regarded as being free from corruption. There has always been a strong consensus across all of the political parties in this House that where even a hint of corruption is alleged, the strongest possible action should be taken to investigate the allegation and to lay the facts bare. That, in all of my time in the House, has been accepted on all sides—until now.

Now we have a different situation on our hands, because the Prime Minister of this country ordered up a report in the form of the Ingram report, which was about 9 months late and short of almost all of the important detail. That report was an insult to this Parliament, and an insult to those who believe in corruption-free politics in New Zealand. Yesterday we saw a further example of insult to this Parliament by Helen Clark, as the Labour Party, aided and abetted by its lapdogs in the Green Party, invited this Parliament to become part of a shabby cover-up of the Field affair. I say the “Field affair”, but it is fast becoming the “Clark affair” because increasingly the scrutiny is moving on to the actions of Helen Clark and to her cover-up of the actions of Taito Phillip Field.

The National Party correctly refuses to become part of a shabby cover-up. We correctly forecast the duplicitous gains that were in prospect. Of course, the objective was simply to close down the Taito Phillip Field affair and the Ingram report—to put them behind us, all shake hands, and go home and pretend that nothing had happened. The Greens were going to move a meaningless motion of censure. Taito Phillip Field was going to follow up with a Clayton’s apology, and it was all going to be over without anyone ever knowing what had actually happened or who had actually done things—perfect; from the Helen Clark rule book. For the National Party to sign up to that arrangement would be to participate in a shabby cover-up. That is what those parties that were to collaborate in such an arrangement are guilty of—a shabby cover-up. Let me be very clear today: the National Party will not be party to any such cover-up, and we will not allow the Taito Phillip Field saga to go away until we have the answers to the questions that every member of the public believes require to be answered. We will go on asking the questions until we get the answers.

The scale of the insult to this Parliament yesterday can clearly be seen by looking at what is laughingly referred to as an apology from Mr Field, who said: “… I accept that members of this House have been concerned by some inferences which may have been drawn from reporting of the Ingram report.” Mr Field says he did not do anything wrong. He does not think he has anything to apologise for. He says it was the inferences that came from the media’s reporting of the Ingram report that have caused concern. Mr Field’s alleged apology continues: “because much of the evidence presented in the report was untested, some inferences”—more of those inferences again—“which may be being drawn are inaccurate, I can understand the disquiet felt by colleagues.” That was straight from the Helen Clark rule book of apologies. We are familiar with the Helen Clark rule book of apologies, and that one was right out of the textbook.

I say to the Prime Minister and her Labour colleagues today that to come along to this House and expect that we would be part of a motion of censure of the sort proposed by the co-leader of the Green Party, to be followed by the Clayton’s apology that I have just quoted from, is a gross insult to this Parliament. It is also a gross insult to every person who has sat in this Parliament and believed that New Zealand politics was free of corruption, and that where there was a hint of a suggestion of corruption, the strongest possible action should be taken to investigate it.

This week in Parliament has been a week of comings and goings and ups and downs. Of course, I am partially referring to the comings and goings of people who have retired and whom we have farewelled in the last week. We have farewelled Dame Silvia Cartwright, Peter Cartwright, and the Hon Jim Sutton, and, of course, we have welcomed our new colleague, Charles Chauvel. But as part of Labour’s positive agenda of pressing ahead with what we have been doing, this week has been no different. The business tax review and the revised school curriculum mean that more consultation is going on with real New Zealanders. We are consulting real New Zealanders about real issues that affect everyday people.

In talking about the performance in the House and the ups and down and the comings and goings, I point out that the most interesting “up and down” that happened in the last week was when the Prime Minister asked: “Would the leader of the National Party please stand up.” Well, up gets Gerry Brownlee, followed by Dr Brash—but not for long, because Dr Don Brash was severely shoved back down in his seat. Someone should tell Gerry Brownlee that actions speak louder than words, and that action certainly told us a lot. But perhaps Gerry Brownlee did not understand the question. I understand that these days the National Party is so cool that the question probably needed to be put to it in the form of a rap song rather than in a direct question to the House. Had the Prime Minister asked: “Would the real Slim Shady please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?”, perhaps National would have got the answer right. However, it is hard to imagine Gerry Brownlee standing up for that one.

But National’s leader, Dr Don Brash, has tried his very best to set the scene. He has been trying to paint a picture of what New Zealand should look like. He said that immigrants who come to New Zealand should have to agree with bedrock beliefs. But then there was silence. Why has nobody else in his party backed that up? How can one set a scene when the rest of one’s team do not pick up the ball and run with it? Not one other National member of Parliament has raised the issue of bedrock values. What are National members so embarrassed about? I think the rest of them have worked out that their power base at the last election—the Exclusive Brethren—will not be very pleased to hear that it is not welcome in this country if it does not believe in democracy. The Exclusive Brethren—an organisation that stops its people from turning up to vote—does not believe in democracy.

What about equality? The Exclusive Brethren certainly does not promote that. National MPs have not been able to back up Don Brash’s scene-setting speech, because it actually undermines their key organisation in their electorates of the Exclusive Brethren. The Exclusive Brethren must be wondering what sort of bad investment it made in the last election. I should invite that organisation to come to a racecourse to make a better investment than the one it made with the money it poured down the drain by supporting the National Party—a party whose leader then turned round and talked against the organisation’s bedrock values.

I would like to see some more from the exciting new bunch of National MPs who were brought in at the last election—visionaries like Chris Auchinvole, Bob Clarkson, Chester Borrows, and Allan Peachey. Why do we not hear more from those members? Perhaps it is because so much elbowing is going on in the front bench that there is no breathing space for them.

Certainly, there is no policy going on in the National Party, because National knows that it would be unelectable if it told the electorate what it really intended to do. However, it has given us a few clues. One of the most recent is the 90-day probationary period bill that has been drawn out of the ballot. This bill is one of the very few clues we have received about National Party policy. The most significant issue that faces employers in this country today is getting people with the appropriate skills to apply for the jobs at the right time. What is the National Party’s answer to that? It is to get rid of workers’ rights; it is to tell workers that they can be got rid of within the 90 days, for any reason that the employer wants. That will bring people with the right skills to the doors of employers at the right time!

That bill is giving us a very good clue as to the sorts of policies National would put into place. It is a very timely reminder that its policies are backward policies. They are very backward policies that take away workers’ rights and that have not worked in other work environments. But what is working and what is delivering on those issues is skills development—the investment in skills development that is happening under the Labour Government.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to talk about truth and reconciliation—moving forward as a nation. The establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was one of the turning points in the history of the world. It was a turning point that sought to move a nation forward from the atrocities of the past, and to achieve a future based on healing and reconciliation. At the forefront at that time was Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a tireless anti-apartheid activist and the winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He spoke out in a way that I believe speaks to our nation at this time. He said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Removing the Treaty from legislation and deleting it from education are injustices that must not go unchallenged. The truth and reconciliation that our nation must confront are sourced in our history and in our future, based in our past and given authority in our present. It is a history that must not be erased, deleted, or removed from the school books of our new curriculum, from the statute book of this fine House, or from the public record. It is a history that derives from the relationship given life to in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our history is a shared history—a history of Pākehā, of tangata whenua, and of nationhood that has been given its authority from the binding document of our constitution, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Last night I read an email from Maanu Paul, the chairman of the New Zealand Māori Council, which I want to share with the House. He wrote: “We need to tell our history. It is a history of passion, commitment, endeavour, sacrifice, and bravery … That is we have a sense of history founded in our island hopping journey across Te Moana Nui A Kiwa (the Pacific), adapting and adopting our architecture, horticulture, language, art, craft, waiata, pakiwaitara, pepeha, and our mātauranga (knowledge). This makes us want to fight for our rights—our tikanga—our taonga and more importantly for the gains our forefathers fought for.”

The mokopuna of Maanu and Gwenda Paul will also, however, benefit from the rich history of whakapapa that comes from the situation of intermarriage. The consequence of the marriage of a Māori man to a Pākehā woman is a demonstration of their unique and shared histories. In the relationship of those two individuals, their children, and grandchildren, we can make sense of the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in their past, their present, and their future.

Our history, going forward, lies in our shared humanity. In order to reconcile the past with our movement onwards, we need to be in a position in which we can speak our truth, share our stories, and walk our talk. Reference to the principles of the Treaty in legislation enables us to apply the Treaty to present-day circumstances and issues. Recognising the significance of the Treaty in our curriculum provides our upcoming leaders with an understanding of how both parties can act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith.

Last night I listened alertly to the member from Hamilton West talk with excitement about national identity, defining it as being about the Defence Force, the Territorials, and, belatedly, a bit of arts and culture. Once again, there was an omission by design: the silencing and rewriting of our cultural identity by the glaring failure to refer to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Someone who is neutral in situations of injustice has chosen the side of the oppressor. The Māori Party challenges all members of this House to remove the blinkers of injustice, and to speak up about a history denied and a history deprived. Thank you.

There is something very curious about the Ingram report. The report shows that in 2005 a whole lot of painting work was done on a number of Phillip Field’s residences: one at 51 Church Street, Ōtāhuhu; one at 73 Blake Road, Māngere; and one at 2A Prangley Avenue, Māngere. The work was done by Thai immigrants whom Phillip Field had assisted with their immigration applications. These people had been overstayers—all sorts of particularly strange cases. What is interesting is that, in respect of the painting work done on Taito Phillip Field’s houses in 2005, Noel Ingram had no trouble sorting out who did the work. In 2004, similar painting work was done on two of those houses: the one at 51 Church Street, and the one at 73 Blake Road. It is strange, but for that work done the year before—in 2004—Noel Ingram could not sort out who did it, at all.

Taito Phillip Field’s friend Ms Thaivichit said she got a Mr Phimpadcha to do it. The only problem is Noel Ingram found that he did not do it and that that was a lie. So he asked Taito Phillip Field who did that painting work in 2004, and Taito Phillip Field gave a whole range of answers. First, according to Noel Ingram, he said he had no recollection, but “there may have been some internal painting activity …”. Then he said Mr Sulusulu may have some knowledge of who did it. Next, he suggested that “he together with his wife and housekeeper may have been involved; he then suggested that Ms Thaivichit may have been responsible; and finally he stated that he was reasonably confident that Ms Thaivichit would have been responsible for organising that painting.”

Noel Ingram concluded with these words: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” Noel Ingram is drawing to our attention the fact that Taito Phillip Field—a former Labour Cabinet Minister—expects us to believe he could not remember whether he painted a house. I ask members whether that is credible. I can accept that Phillip Field might have said he could not remember whether he started painting that house at the beginning of August or the end of July. But to tell Noel Ingram he could not remember whether he had painted the house is simply lying. I do not care who a person is; no one can claim not to remember whether he or she painted a house. That is not possible.

Members might ask why it matters that Noel Ingram had no trouble sorting out who did all the painting work in 2005, yet could not sort out who did it in 2004. The reason why it matters is that crucial decisions were being made on work permit applications and residence applications in 2004, when that painting work on Taito Phillip Field’s houses was going on. Crucial decisions were being made on work permits and residence applications for Thai immigrants, for painters like a fellow called Mr Chaikhunpol, and if the truth had been revealed about who had painted Taito Phillip Field’s houses, a clear conflict of interest would have been established. This issue in the Ingram report is important because the cover-up—the engineered cover-up—about who did the painting work on those two houses in 2004 covers the time period when crucial decisions were being made by the then Associate Minister of Immigration on some key applications for work permits and residence.

That is one of the reasons why there should be a further inquiry by a select committee into this report. Noel Ingram points out that because people either lied to him—including Taito Phillip Field—or refused to talk to him, he could not sort out those issues. That is why there should be a further inquiry.

In the last 4 years I have been privileged to hold the job of Minister for Ethnic Affairs. It has given me the chance to engage with probably more diverse groups in this country than most other members have engaged with. I know that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, in your very diverse electorate of Manukau East, which is probably one of the most diverse communities in New Zealand, have had a chance to meet quite a few people. Of course, my colleague Lynne Pillay is a very active person in west Auckland, engaging with communities out there. People like us have had a chance to get to know people in diverse communities, and to know some of the fears, aspirations, and ambitions of those people, and particularly of new migrants to our country.

Last week, when the leader of the National Party, Don Brash, spoke at a conference on immigration and investment in New Zealand, he alarmed those communities. He compounded the fears that were already out there—fears that have manifested themselves in relation to the desecration of Islamic centres in Auckland. Just yesterday I went out to the Hutt Valley to visit a mosque there that had been graffitied with racist graffiti. Also yesterday, a synagogue in Christchurch was attacked. So within our peaceful country—a place that has served as a refuge for many people who have come to New Zealand—racism is alive and well. Luckily of course, this racism is not at the same level that it is at in some other places, but it is out there. That sensitivity, that anguish in the community, was touched on, inflamed, and aggravated last week when Dr Brash suggested people should not come to New Zealand if they did not share core New Zealand values.

Of course, we all want immigrants to share core values, and I say they do. Dr Brash, when asked whom he was talking about, could not or would not name any of the groups he might have been referring to. Of course, he could have touched on the Exclusive Brethren—something my colleague Mr Hodgson talked about earlier—which is a group that does not share core New Zealand values. The Exclusive Brethren do not believe in voting and do not believe in equal rights for women, but are well prepared to give millions of dollars to the National Party.

But I want to get back to our communities and our increasingly diverse multi-ethnic and multicultural society. The situation in Lebanon, the ongoing anarchy in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and indeed the racial riots in Australia last year and the massacre of Muslim boys and men in the former Yugoslavia 10 years ago all create a framework whereby ethnic communities in New Zealand are sensitive. For Dr Brash to speak about some New Zealanders not sharing aspects of New Zealand culture is, to say the very least, insensitive. To go further than that, I say it actually creates discord and disunity in our community.

Dr Brash actually implies that diversity is thoroughly bad. Yesterday we had an excellent maiden speech from my friend and colleague Charles Chauvel. He talked about migration being absolutely essential for New Zealand. He said this country was built on migration, from the first canoes that left Charles’ ancestral islands of Tahiti and Rai’atea and other islands, to the ancestors of all of us who have arrived in this country. Migration has enriched both the culture and the economy of this country.

Sending out a message on core values from somebody who aspires to be an alternative Prime Minister is extraordinarily stupid. It is also extraordinarily destructive in the framework of the contemporary international scene. Just last Christmas, we saw racial riots in Australia at Cronulla Beach. We saw a large Lebanese community there that felt as though it was not part of Australia. In that context, Dr Brash raises the question of some New Zealanders not sharing core values, and he therefore says they should not come to this country.

Again, we ask the Leader of the Opposition to name whom he is talking about. If he is talking about the Exclusive Brethren, I agree with him, but if he is trying to play on racial and cultural prejudices, then I utterly reject that. Populist politicians in Europe and elsewhere have played that card, leading to the destruction of their societies. Racial riots have occurred in Paris and other French cities, and much of the responsibility for that situation can be blamed on the rhetoric of people like Mr Le Pen inflaming the situation in France. The situation is similar in the Netherlands and elsewhere.

We do not want to have racism in this country.

When Minister Burton took a call—he said it would be short, and thank God it was—he said the Government was embarrassed by riches. In part he is right: it is embarrassed by Taito Phillip Field’s riches! I will come back to that in a moment.

I have been in this House for 4 years, and the worst thing I have witnessed since I have been in this House was the obscene gesture that Ron Mark perpetrated yesterday. When I remonstrated with the Speaker to drag the House back out of the gutter into which it had descended, she kicked “Phil” and me out—in doing so she could not even get my name right. She might wonder why the National Party—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that it is not in order to bring the Speaker into debate, and that members may not use the general debate to discuss a ruling of the Speaker, or the Speaker’s view or opinions. In that respect, I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 17/6(3). I ask the member to desist and to be careful how he couches his language.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that over the last couple of days Michael Cullen has been going around various political commentators and telling them that there was no merit in the motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker, and that there was therefore no need to have a particular debate on it, because there was an opportunity in the imprest supply debate, which he described as broad and wide-ranging, and also in the general debate, which he similarly described. I do not know what has happened here. The Leader of the House has tried to tell the media that the Opposition has every opportunity to raise these matters in debate, but somehow, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are now trying to curtail that discussion. I think the Labour members need to get into a room, start talking about all the deficiencies in the cover-up process so far, and come back with a consistent line. Although you are doubtless going to resort to the Standing Orders, and perhaps even Speakers’ Rulings, I suspect that somewhere in your in-box there is an instruction—one you have not read yet—from Michael Cullen to bring down a new ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Brownlee for his comments, and I appreciate the fact that he has considered them. I can but rule with precedent, and that, of course, is Speakers’ Rulings. The issue is covered under Speakers’ ruling 17/6: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government … (3) or to bring the Speaker’s name and opinions into a debate.” It is in relation to the last part that I have asked Mr Connell to be careful how he couches his debate.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise two points with you. First of all, I suggest to you that you misheard my colleague. I was listening to the debate very carefully. I think there is a fine distinction here. He was recounting to the House the level of offence that he had taken at some actions by another member, Mr Mark, in the House yesterday. He is entitled to do that. He was recounting to the House his anger, I presume it was, that, having raised that matter, he was required by the Speaker to leave the Chamber. That, I suggest to you, was an integral part of the story that my colleague was trying to relate to the House. I was looking forward to hearing the balance of that story, and I think it is unfortunate that you cut him off before you were able to hear the full context of what he was trying to say.

The second thing I suggest is this. There are Speakers’ rulings that require members not to say certain things about the Speaker and that state that if members have a strong view about the actions of the Speaker, there is a formal way in which they can record their dissatisfaction, dissent, or whatever, and then have it considered by the House. The problem is that our having undertaken that step, the ability to have the discussion that the Speakers’ rulings presume will be held has been denied us. I suggest to you that, in that context, you are required to provide a little more latitude to the House, in the absence of our being able to complete the procedure that has been properly initiated. The only step available to members is in the context of a general debate, where we can in a passing way make reference to those events.

Hon Mark Burton: Briefly, I have two points, and both are relevant. The problem was not with Mr Heatley’s reference as to why he felt angry and concerned—

Ron Mark: Connell, not Heatley.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is already a point of order, Mr Connell.

Hon Mark Burton: I apologise to the member Ron Mark. I made the same mistake that he made in referring to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that points of order should be short, succinct, and to the point. I suggest that members do not bring in any practices that can lead to members on the other side taking offence, because that in itself leads to disorder.

Hon Mark Burton: I think the problem was that the member strayed into a breach of Speakers’ rulings. There was not a problem with his recounting why he was unhappy. I do not think that was the problem. It was, as you rightly pointed out, when he strayed into a direct breach of Speakers’ rulings.

The second point gets us back to this problem. The member’s own colleagues started this day by making long points of order that called on the Speaker to apply the Standing Orders. The National members said they were concerned about the House being brought into disrepute because of a lack of respect for the Standing Orders, but then they continually want to challenge the very Standing Orders. They cannot have it both ways.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I would like to rule on this, because I would like the member to get back to his speech. It is not for any member to relitigate a ruling, and it is not appropriate to debate, in effect, the motion relating to the Speaker. I just ask the member to be careful. He has been here 4 years and he has some experience.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the large number of points of order and your rulings for each of those, can I please have more time in my speech?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will tell you what I am going to do. I am going to allow you to start again.

BRIAN CONNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That is very generous of you. I start, then, by saying that this Parliament has allowed itself to be manipulated by the Prime Minister into sheltering Taito Phillip Field from the proper oversight of this Parliament. Members might recall the Prime Minister saying to the country that when in Government she would bring new levels of accountability and integrity to this House. Well, she has done that! She has brought new levels, all right. They are so low that one has to get into the gutter to find them. That is the problem. I cannot imagine that the last Parliament would have allowed this type of debacle to develop, by covering for Mr Field and by not allowing this Parliament to get to the truth. Every member of this Parliament is being tainted by the stench of corruption. Any Speaker has an obligation to make sure that the honour of the members of this Parliament is protected. I believe that we are being let down badly. There is hardly a man or woman across New Zealand who, irrespective of voting patterns, does not think that Taito Phillip Field should be brought to account—no men or women except, of course, those in the present Government.

Mr Field may be innocent—I am big enough to allow that—but the point is that we will never know. The trouble with never knowing is that the general public see what is alleged to have happened through Mr Taito Phillip Field’s actions, and the rest of us are marked in the same way. That, surely, has to be unacceptable.

Another question that begs answering is why a man who has done nothing wishes to apologise to Parliament. Why would a man who is guiltless want to stand up before his peers and say that he is sorry?

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a device.

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, it is—the member is quite right; it is a device.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: A little bit sorry.

BRIAN CONNELL: Just a little bit sorry! It is simply a device by the Prime Minister—we can see her grubby handprint all over the drafting of that apology—to take the issue off the agenda. But we are not buying into that.

So what lessons can we learn from what has been perpetrated on this Parliament? If someone perverts the political process for political gain, then that person brings the House into disorder. The disorder we have seen in this House in the last 2 or 3 weeks can be sheeted home directly to the Prime Minister's manipulation of this House, and members of the National Party simply will not stand for it. We are members who not only argue that we have integrity but, by our very actions, demonstrate that we have integrity. We would expect nothing less.

We do have disorder in this House; there is no doubt about that. Despite your asking me not to go there, Mr Assistant Speaker, I say that when we have disorder we end up having no confidence in our Speaker, and that is a sad day for New Zealand. This Parliament has a very proud tradition. A Speaker's responsibility is to protect that tradition and to protect current members in this House from the stench of corruption. I believe that we have been let down.

What do we want from the Government regarding Mr Taito Phillip Field? We want what Dr Ingram wants. He stated: “If the allegations … are to be resolved, it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to enquire further.” What is so unreasonable about asking for that? All we want is simply for the truth to be got at.

One of the most interesting things about the Opposition in Parliament, the National members, is that whenever Dr Brash goes out and gives a big speech about a certain area, a deafening silence comes from his colleagues in support of it. On Friday Dr Brash gave a think-piece speech, a scene-setting speech—which is a little hard to take seriously, is it not? Anyway, he trotted off to Auckland and talked about the “bedrock values of New Zealand”, which I would have thought were pretty important; if one were going to be talking about values one would want to mention those that were bedrock values. So he gave his speech, but not a single one of his flunkies on the Opposition benches have mentioned that speech this afternoon in the general debate.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Not one?

DARREN HUGHES: Not a single one has bothered to back up his or her leader’s call for a debate about bedrock society in New Zealand. Does that leader exist in a parallel universe? Does that man—

Hon Murray McCully: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Point of order—

DARREN HUGHES: The strategist!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson):— the honourable member Murray McCully.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before I raised my point of order, you will have heard that after you had given me the call to raise it the member who was speaking made a further comment that was designed to show disrespect both to me and to you. I wonder whether you are going to let him get away with that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry; I did not hear it, Mr McCully. I was otherwise engaged listening to you. Could you please continue.

Hon Murray McCully: It is normally the practice, when such an assertion is made by a member and the Speaker has not heard it, that the Speaker puts it to the member about whom the accusation has been made and asks that member whether he or she wants to confirm it, or not. Are you not going to do that?

DARREN HUGHES: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I do not know what the member is talking about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to Mr McCully that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond, and I can only take what the member has said.

Hon Murray McCully: I will leave it there, Mr Assistant Speaker. We can get the transcript or the tape, and I am sure we can litigate this on another occasion. But my purpose in rising was to draw to your attention the fact that a reference was made to members on this side of the House that was offensive to those members. I will not repeat the word, but I was surprised you did not take the matter up with the member and ask him to withdraw it. I now ask you to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I did consider it, but no one actually raised it. The member has now, and I know what the word was. Can I just say that—

Simon Power: They shouldn’t have to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson):—I am on my feet—under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 members must not use nicknames when they refer to members. The member will now—

Hon Member: It wasn’t a nickname.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Have you finished? The member will now withdraw and apologise.

DARREN HUGHES: I am happy to withdraw and apologise. I am sorry about that.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Referring to your last ruling, I feel you now leave the House in a very difficult position. You have just ruled that unless a member reacts to a breach of the Standing Orders, the Speaker or presiding officer will take no action. My understanding is that whether a member reacts to a breach of the Standing Orders is not the measure by which the Standing Orders are enforced. They are enforced if they are breached, whether or not members react. You have now placed us in a very difficult position.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say to the member—and the member knows this—that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It was the personal reflection that was out of order, and now that the member has pointed it out, the member on the other side of the House has been asked to withdraw and apologise. I note what the member has said—thank you.

DARREN HUGHES: I was talking about the fact that Dr Don Brash, the Leader of the Opposition, goes all around New Zealand occasionally—when the National Party team tells him what to do in terms of his strategy and his style—to try to relaunch his career several more times, and to give it another go. He gives one of those speeches, and I suspect that they are not all that well-thought-out. I suspect that those speeches are decided on a couple of days beforehand, when Mr McCully goes into Dr Brash’s office and says: “Boss, we need a big idea”—

Hon Ruth Dyson: I’ve got a strategy.

DARREN HUGHES:—“we need a circuit-breaker; I’ve got a strategy. It’s a bit similar to the one I gave Jim McLay, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Bill English, and now you, Don Brash. I’m giving you a similar kind of strategy in terms of a circuit-breaker. Here’s the one I reckon is going to make all the difference.”

Hon Ruth Dyson: What happened to those others?

DARREN HUGHES: Well, the other National Party leaders, of course, have not done so well following Mr McCully’s advice. It was only when the National Party caucus rebelled about his involvement that National’s party vote finally went up. Of course he would never admit that. Interestingly, when National had a photograph taken of its front-bench members, somehow the second-rower Murray McCully made it on to the front bench, which I am sure had tongues wagging right across the conference.

So Don Brash gave that speech, right? He got up and said that we have to have bedrock values, because tens of thousands of people come in through Auckland airport, having signed immigration forms saying: “I intend to undermine New Zealand democracy; I intend to break the law at every opportunity; I intend to make sure that New Zealanders who already live in this country are treated badly.” Thousands of people have their immigration forms approved, having written that on their forms, according to Don Brash. So a circuit-breaker was needed to say: “Bedrock values only; otherwise you can’t come in.” Bedrock, of course, is an important part of The Flintstones TV programme—something that Don Brash would like, with his kind of prehistoric views on social policy in our country.

The problem is that after having given that speech, not one of those members has had the loyalty to their leader to make it the centrepiece of their Wednesday debate. He gives those speeches, but none of those members mention them ever again. It is as if the speeches disappear into the ether. National members all come to Wellington on Tuesday and say: “Oh, did you see that Dr Brash gave a speech last week?”, and “Oh well, don’t worry about that; we’ll just wait for the next big flip-flop. We’ll get on with the next thing; don’t worry about it.” So I am feeling very sorry for Dr Brash at the present time, in that regard, because when will that man’s policy speeches be taken seriously? It does not look as if they will be, at all. [Interruption]

The Minister for Senior Citizens is here, and she spoke in question time today about the difficulty we saw when Mr Brownlee manhandled Dr Brash back into his seat in the Chamber. I have never seen the Prime Minister exert so much influence and control over this Chamber. She gave her answer, then said that we were not sure who the leader of the National Party was and asked one of them to decide. They both got to their feet, and before we knew it Gerry Brownlee—in a very familiar-looking move—pushed the pensioner away. The way he was able to do that looked good, did it not?

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members on this side of the House are concerned that the member on his feet has only a short period of time remaining, and we want him to take the opportunity during his speech to verbally come out in support of Taito Phillip Field. We are wondering when he will get to that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. I say to the member that frivolous points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are in themselves disorderly. Such tactics lead to disorder and are unacceptable for the progress of the business of the House. The member has his first yellow card.

DARREN HUGHES: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. We now know that Simon Power’s leadership aspirations rest on breaking up the speech of the member for Otaki. That is the great strategic comeback from Simon Power. He used to be the “Kennedy” figure of the National Party, and now the only thing he can do to try to get himself noticed in Parliament and in Hansard is to interrupt the junior Government whip. I do not think he will have much chance of getting the National Party leadership at all.

The members opposite who are yelling, screaming, and showing themselves to be a disgrace of an Opposition have not given us a single policy this afternoon. They do not back up their leader. They cannot explain how one can spend more and tax less—a very simple question of economics. They say the same thing every day they come to Parliament: the Government never spends enough money on any issue it is covering, and the Government should get less revenue. Can members work that out? Can they work out how one can tax less and spend more? These people are impossible. They do not support their own leader. They spend all their time trying to ignore the fact that he even exists. When he fronts up in Parliament they push him around, and he is pushed back into his seat by a man who was once convicted and fined $8,500 for throwing a pensioner down some stairs—and now is paid $8,500 a month in Parliament to push his leader around. The man is an absolute disgrace in that regard. The Opposition should focus on things all New Zealanders can feel they belong to, not wacko Exclusive Brethren things to which women are not allowed to belong. We believe that the Labour Party should be inclusive of all New Zealanders.

Absolute corruption, absolutely dirty, and a cover-up as big as my blanket at home—in fact, bigger. The lies the officials have told—absolute corruption. And that was just about the French Revolution back in 1789! The same situation exists here. It smells dirty, it smells corrupt, it looks corrupt—and, by crikey, it is corrupt. And the Government talks about bedrock principles of democracy. Well, the bedrock principles of democracy are based on telling the truth—on elected officials fronting up and not using the system for their own benefit. That is not what has happened here. Not one of the Labour speakers today has supported Phillip Field. Out of a caucus of 50 members, not one has got up and stated support for Phillip Field. Well, we never know—maybe one Labour member supports him.

There has been $450,000 spent and 9 months of work—and do members know why the report contains nothing they can hang him on? It is because the terms of reference were decided by the Prime Minister. The outcome of this report was already worked out when the Prime Minister sat down with Michael Cullen and Phillip Field and worked out the terms of reference for the so-called Ingram report. Half a million dollars later we are none the wiser. Why? Because the matter has been covered up, from start to finish. Government members know that full well, so do my former colleagues in New Zealand First—they know as well—and not one of them will get up and support Phillip Field either.

Yesterday we saw in this House the application of one rule for some and another rule for others. While others got away with disgusting behaviour, two members from this side of the House were marched out of the House for absolutely no reason. I take this opportunity to say that I am totally against the Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that it is not in order to bring the Speaker into the debate. Members may not use the general debate to do that. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 17/6—I want him to look at that—and I say to him that if he has any concerns at all about the Speaker then the only way to air them is by a notice of motion. I suggest that the member might like to take that course. I now ask the member to stand up and withdraw and apologise. He has his first yellow card.

Hon TAU HENARE: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider your ruling again and to reflect on the matter I touched on in an earlier point of order. I have no dispute with your ruling as to what the Standing Orders say, and they do correctly identify an approach members should take when they feel a lack of confidence in the presiding officer. I remind you that that course of action has been taken. Members on this side of the House have tried to comply with the Standing Order—have lodged a notice of motion—and it is through the actions of the Government that they are being denied the opportunity to debate the motion they have properly filed. Surely in those circumstances members on this side of the House must be granted some latitude. As members have been denied the vehicle the Standing Orders prescribe for their use in such circumstances, surely they must have the ability to make a passing reference in the course of a general debate on a Wednesday afternoon, because they have no other recourse.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. That matter was dealt with previously when another National member spoke. There was general agreement as to how the member would conduct himself, and he did so admirably. Mr Henare went a step too far. He has now withdrawn and apologised. I appreciate that he has done that, and I ask him now to desist and come to order, and to continue with his speech.

Hon TAU HENARE: Some are born good, some make good, and some are caught with the goods. That member, Phillip Field, has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar—the big cookie jar, not the little wee lolly jar. And not one of the members opposite has enough—no, I will not say it—to stand up and support a colleague. They do not have enough gumption to support the former Minister—and this is not the first such occasion.

I want to say also that in the beginning it was Phillip Field who was at fault. Then as the big snowball started rolling it collected Prime Minister Clark. It also collected Dr Cullen. And yesterday we saw it catch someone else: Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Greens. Let us not forget about her. They are all complicit in this dirty cover-up. No democracy in the world can get away with a little bit of corruption or a big bit of corruption. Wherever corruption raises its ugly head we must do everything in our power to make sure we root it out, because we owe it to the institution of democracy and to the people of this country to do so.

This matter should be before the Privileges Committee. But if it is not to go to the Privileges Committee, why has the Serious Fraud Office not—

Simon Power: I seek leave to have 10 minutes put aside at the conclusion of the general debate for Labour Party members present to express their support for Taito Phillip Field.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

A few weeks ago we heard of the decision that Church College is to close its doors. What people might not realise is that although it was entitled to do so, that school, which began in 1958, did not until the last couple of years accept any Government funding other than student-specific funding such as the ongoing resourcing scheme. We need to recognise the contribution Church College has made to New Zealand. Now that most of the 700 or so students from Church College will be entering the fully funded system, the decision to close the school will have significant costs for the Government, in terms of both additional buildings to accommodate students, and money for ongoing teacher salaries and operational funding.

In the State housing area where I grew up many kids attended private or independent schools. In fact, over the country thousands of kids from working-class homes attended private schools. I am referring particularly to Catholic schools, and members on both sides of the House will have attended Catholic schools when they were independent. Those schools had remained outside the State sector when the sector was established in 1877, and had received nothing from the Government since that time.

In 1975 that all changed with the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act, which drew all Catholic and many other independent schools under the State’s umbrella—but not all; a few retained their independence. There are now 112 independent schools, catering for almost 30,000 students. They range from decile 1 to decile 10 and have annual fees ranging from $400—I might note—to $12,000. To put that into context, I tell members there is an integrated school here in Wellington that receives virtually the same funding as any other State school but that is charging parents an annual fee of $4,500. There is a primary State school in Auckland that charges well over $450 per annum.

Over time, the amount of support from Government for independent schools has ranged from a high of a 50 percent subsidy for teacher salaries in 1975, to a low of nothing in 1989. By the year 2000 the subsidy had been increased to 30 percent of the cost of a State student for years 1 to 11, and 40 percent for years 12 to 13. Interestingly enough, at that time the GST paid by parents on fees paid was almost exactly half the subsidy provided by the State—in other words, when $19.1 million was paid in GST, $40 million was paid out in subsidies.

But a decision was made by the new Labour Government to cap the total amount of money funded to independent schools at $40.2 million. The results have been drastic for those schools. As teacher salary costs have risen—and they have risen by 45 percent since 1998—those costs have had to be absorbed. As school running costs have risen—and they have risen by 39 percent since 1998—those costs have had to be absorbed. As student numbers have increased—and they have increased by almost 25 percent since 2000—those numbers have had to be absorbed. When the 1,200 home-schooled Brethren students enrolled at independent Westmount School, the Government saved itself more than $1 million per annum in home-schooling fees, but it did not pay an additional cent for those students to be taught in the independent system.

I am calling on the Government to revisit the capped fund policy, because of its practical implications. There are those who say that independent schools should receive nothing. Regardless of one’s political position, the truth is that those schools are still responsible for the education of young people in becoming fully productive citizens of our nation. It is our nation that benefits from what those schools are doing.

There is also a practical reality. Independent schools save the country money, and I can well remember Archbishop Liston, during my time at school, threatening the Government that if it did not come to the party then the Catholic proprietors would close all their schools down. It would be a massive cost to the Government if it had to cater for the 27,000 additional students that would be its responsibility if the independent schools all closed tomorrow.

There is actually an optimum point of subsidy from a cost point of view. Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research shows that it is around about the 45 percent mark. That is well above even the 30 percent subsidy, but the result of the cap has been to reduce the rate to close to 25 percent.

I say that the Government is treating those schools punitively. It is the parents, who have already paid their taxes, who are receiving the blunt end of the stick. They have to pay higher fees and more GST. Anyone with any sense of justice will see how unfair the situation is. So New Zealand First will be asking that the Government revisits this policy—not to give a full funding, because we do not believe in that; not even to give the level of a 45 percent subsidy; but at least to give a return to the proportion of funding in 2000. We know that those who send their children to independent schools are unlikely to vote for Labour or New Zealand First but, nevertheless, it is up to the Government to do the right thing.

After hearing that contribution, which was well considered and thoughtful—even though I might not agree with many of the points made—I find it very difficult to imagine how much that member must miss his former colleague Tau Henare, who made the previous contribution to the House. The difference in style and in the ability to get anything progressed in this Parliament has never been more stark than when listening to the Hon Brian Donnelly, preceded by Tau Henare.

This has been another very, very bad week for the current leader of the National Party, culminating in his being pushed around quite literally by his deputy leader, who has a very well-known reputation for assisting people down the stairs—particularly people who do not want to go down any stairs. But doing it in front of the entire House, and therefore in front of the entire nation, during question time is just extraordinary.

Every week Dr Brash proves to the nation and the caucus that he does not have what it takes to be the leader. Every week he provides us with more evidence that he is not up to being the leader. Every week he provides us with policy, contradiction, and double standards—fresh off the back of the National Party’s extraordinary “cool” marketing presentation, as was outlined to the House the week before the National Party conference. It is a marketing campaign that, by the way, Dr Brash had not seen 3 days before it was presented to his own party conference. He had not even seen it. Mind you, we should not be surprised about that. This is the same Dr Brash who called a press conference—he was not door-stopped; he specifically called a press conference—to explain the email story. Then part way through the conference, when he was challenged about the content of his own email, he said to the journalist that he actually did not have a copy of that email. He was provided with a copy and then proceeded to read it out to the entire group at the press conference. Should we be surprised that that member had not even seen his own marketing campaign, which was presented just 3 days afterwards to his own party conference?

That “cool” presentation talked about a number of things, such as encouraging the new women members of the National Party—and old members of the National Party—to try to get their faces on the front page of Woman’s Day and New Idea. If that party could come up with one new idea then members may well deserve to get their photos on the front cover, but, at the moment, they have not.

One of the other ideas that was presented to the National Party during the “cool” presentation was that National MPs align themselves to charities and non-governmental organisations, so they could cosy up to them and say: “We’re your friends. We’ll help you.” That was very interesting news to one charity. I received an email from a very, very reputable organisation, which stated: “I saw in last week’s Dominion Post that National Party MPs were being encouraged to get involved with charities.” It sounds like a good idea; of course, they would have to be told to do it. “I have approached National Party MPs asking them if they would assist with a charity collection.” What was the answer? “To date, I have had only one reply, which said that that particular person was unavailable to help.” That is the response that a genuine, reputable, not-for-profit organisation in New Zealand got when the National Party was fronted up to deliver.

New Zealanders do not want a marketing campaign, and they do not want to see the soft, airbrushed face of Judith Collins on the front pages of their magazines; they want action. When this organisation asked for action, what it got from the National Party was “No, we are too busy.” Well, I would like one member of that caucus to show some genuine commitment to not-for-profit organisations and to deliver, but no one will.

The cool marketing campaign, which their leader did not even know about, is not going very well with the public so far. Then we led on to the “bedrock” speech. I have to commend Dr Brash for the name of his speech. It is a fantastic name. Bedrock is the town in which the Flintstones—the Stone Age cartoon characters, Fred and Wilma, and Barney Rubble—live. Nothing suits that member more than the Stone Age.

I want to make a gesture to the Labour Party. I want to make a gesture to the Government. What I will do is offer Labour members some of my speaking time, in which they can have the opportunity to raise a point of order. This is a genuine offer. I would like to give the members who are present on the other side of the Chamber—and I see Sue Moroney—an opportunity to stand up and give their support to Taito Phillip Field. They should do it now. Let it be noted that I have invited those members to do so. I have made time available. I am happy to do it again so that the members opposite can stand up and give their support to Taito Phillip Field. I will give them another moment. Look at them. Not one of the members opposite is prepared to get up and support their colleague. What does that tell us? It tells us there is a cover-up. There is a smell in this Chamber, and that smell revolves around Taito Phillip Field.

I listened to the maiden speech of the new Labour member. It was very good, in fact. He has high ideals for himself, for his party, and also for New Zealand. What a shame that his Government does not live up to those modest ideals. Boy, is he in for a shock when he gets to know what it is like to be within the Labour caucus. The Labour caucus members do not have the guts to stand up and support their colleague in the House. I again offer them an opportunity to stand up in this House and lend their support to their colleague Taito Phillip Field. No, the silence is absolutely deafening.

Mind you, this is a party whose leader signs paintings that she does not paint herself; this is a party whose leader sped through South Canterbury last year, and then blamed it on her police escort; this is a party whose leader, as Prime Minister, loves her people so much that she referred to a staff member as “a lowly messenger”. This is a Prime Minister who will do anything, whatever it takes, to hold on to power.

I want to see a select committee inquiry into the goings-on of Taito Phillip Field. It is not a hard thing to ask, but will the Government do it? I doubt it. We needed a select committee inquiry, but what did we get? After 9 months of waiting we got a report on Taito Phillip Field. These were the powers of the inquiry. Noel Ingram’s powers were no different from the ability of any natural person—in other words, he had no powers. He did not have the power to compel attendance of witnesses before him to give evidence. He did not have the power to administer oaths in relation to those examined or interviewed. He was the same as me. He had no powers to compel the production of documents in the course of this inquiry. This is not good enough for the people of New Zealand.

The Labour Party has just celebrated its 90th birthday—90 proud years of the Labour Party. Man, those members must be absolutely ashamed of what is going on in this House in 2006. We have here Labour members with their heads down; Labour members who are not prepared to get up in this House and support their colleague. What must those people who founded the Labour Party 90 years ago be thinking of the party today, which is prepared to shield a man who has taken advantage of people.

Remember, this is the Labour Party. This is the party that will not support a man who has taken advantage of illegal immigrants and paid them less than the minimum wage. This is the Labour Party—the workers’ party. This is the party that is shielding a man who paid immigrant people less than the minimum wage. Oh, yes! Labour members are not laughing now. What we need is a select committee inquiry.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.