General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is official: panic has well and truly struck the Labour Party. There is no more pretence that things will come right, no more pretence that there will be a bounce back, no more suggestion that there will be a honeymoon, and no more pretence that these are just short-term blues. Labour is dog-tucker, and now it knows it. It has taken 9 months and Labour members have finally worked out they are all gone. I will come back to them in a moment.

Does it not bring out those endearing and wonderful qualities in Labour members when they finally work out the truth? We know what those qualities are: viciousness, nastiness, ugliness, vindictiveness—just the normal stuff that goes on in the Labour Party caucus on Tuesday mornings. You see, Michael Cullen and Helen Clark stopped talking to each other about 9 months ago. You might remember when Helen Clark came back from overseas—from Malaysia—about 2 weeks ago. We asked her about David Benson-Pope and whether the case had been well handled. She got up, looked at Michael Cullen, and said: “No, but I’m back now.”

I have news for the Labour Party. If this is how seriously spooked they are when National is 14 points in front of them, they are going to get ugly when we are 28 points in front of them, that is all I can say. They will be running round like a bunch of sewer rats looking for a drainpipe, because that is what they are.

But I will tell you what is worse than all of this—it is that the New Zealand public do not care. They are so over Labour, they do not care. What is even worse is that they do not expect anything different. [Interruption] Mr Mallard, I now know why there is an official duck-hunting season, mate. We will get back to you in a minute.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course, I do not care about any comment about me, but you should not be brought—[Interruption] Are you going to deal with that, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just warn members that points of order are to be heard in silence and are to be terse and to the point. Any interjections in future will be getting a yellow card and the member will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I, of course, do not mind at all about comments about myself—I can take it—but you should not be brought into the debate, as he did on three occasions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is correct. I let it go, but the member should not bring the Speaker into the debate.

JOHN KEY: No one will be surprised that the country is over the Labour Party. Let us get a few facts right. These are people who stole $800,000 to get here—OK? That is what the public know; Labour members stole $800,000 to get here. And what have they done since they have been here? No Government in history has sacked so many Ministers for lying; one-fifth of its entire caucus has been sacked for lying. That is a fact. What is coming next? What is coming next is a Mugabe-type raid on the Electoral Act so that Labour can stay there. Labour members stole the money to get here, they have done nothing when they have been here, and now they are trying to change the rules so they can stay here. Well, that will not work because people are sick of them.

Let us think about some facts. Helen Clark has new standards for her Ministers now. You do not have to tell the truth—

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

JOHN KEY: —if you are a Minister in this Government. Those Ministers do not have to tell the truth and they will not be held accountable even when the Prime Minister of New Zealand tells people they will. There is only one time when they will be accountable and that is when the Opposition asks the right question. That is a new standard—OK? It used to be that we would just expect to get an honest answer, but that is out the window.

How many Ministers are sitting over there who have not told the truth to this country? The Prime Minister has sacked one-fifth of them; how many of them are sitting there knowing they could have asked the question and they did not? None of us should be surprised that David Benson-Pope has gone. The inside word from the Labour Party—this is what they told me—is that 5 months ago she stopped having dinner with David Benson-Pope on a Monday night. That was gone. I will tell members what else is true. She has stopped having dinner with Rick Barker, and she has stopped having dinner with Mark Burton. The Prime Minister has a strategy: she is going to sack every “B” in the caucus. Every “B” in the caucus is gone.

That is what the death rattle from a hollow man sounds like—a man who Audrey Young said lied to her. He lied to her, and now he runs from the House because he cannot take it. He cannot take criticism; he runs away. He lies and lies, and he runs.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is far too much noise, and barraging is not permitted in the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be a good idea if the Deputy Prime Minister just swallowed a bit on the Standing Orders and recognised it is quite inappropriate for him to talk about not only the Prime Minister but also other members being out of the House at this time,.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There used to be a convention, of course, that members stayed in the House to hear a response to their speech, but that member could not take it and fled the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that each and every one of us at various times has to leave the Chamber for other pressing public business.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That man has had a bad few days. He entered the National Party conference to a song called “Clocks” by Coldplay. And what does that song actually say?

Lights go out and I can’t be saved.

Tides that I tried to swim against

Brought me down upon my knees

Oh I beg, I beg and plead

The song goes on to say:

You are

You are

Confusion that never stops

For once in his life, Mr Key was honest—for once. That is the man who did not tell the truth about where he lived before the 2005 election, and who lied about the electoral roll. He is a man who talks about housing affordability and owns six houses in New Zealand alone. He is a man who said in 2003 that the National Party would send troops to Iraq, then said a few days ago that it would not have done. Then his staff said he was merely repeating the caucus line. Mr Key said in May this year that Dr Brash was not supporting the caucus line, and that the caucus line was not to support going to Iraq.

Mr Key is a man who says anything to anybody, to try to please them. He has no notion of what the truth is. You see, David Benson-Pope had to resign for making conflicting statements. Mr Key believes it is perfectly all right for him to make conflicting statements within one speech or one interview. His colleague Dr Smith was found by a judge to have lied to that judge, and nothing happened to Dr Smith as a consequence of that. Audrey Young accused Mr Key of lying to her—and he did—over the joint trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency, just as he lied to me over that agency. He cannot tell the truth, because he does not know what the truth is.

Yesterday Mr Key sat in this House—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes—I know what the member is going to say.

Gerry Brownlee: No, you do not, so I will give it to you. When members of this House have in the past raised the issue of the Prime Minister lying over “paintergate”, the Prime Minister lying about racing through the straights of Canterbury in the back of a speeding motorcar, the Prime Minister lying about her knowledge of the release of GE corn, the Prime Minister lying to Plunket over PlunketLine, the Prime Minister lying and lying and lying—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Make the point.

Gerry Brownlee: We have been told by the Speaker that that was unparliamentary and that such behaviour had to stop, and we have accepted that. You yourself, sir, have said many times that honourable members should be treated as honourable members. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself has repeated that and relied on that many times in the last couple of weeks, as she dealt with the Benson-Pope issue. I know that Michael Cullen is upset; I know he is wound up. I know he is giving a speech based on his own venom—his own jealousy, etc. But sir, you have to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is making a speech.

Gerry Brownlee: —uphold the standards of Parliament, and that line is unacceptable.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I would remind you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that Mr Key used that word frequently during his speech. I deliberately did not take objection, so that the Opposition will therefore get what comes back to it in that respect. I have chapter and verse for every one of the contradictions that Mr Key has engaged in. That man does not know what the truth is. He says whatever he will say to please anybody at any moment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that they can never allege that another member has lied. That is absolutely out of order. A member may challenge the validity or correctness of a member’s statement but must not accuse the member of lying. A member cannot accuse another member of having made a statement on any occasion whilst knowing it to be incorrect or untrue, and cannot impute a deliberate untruth to another member. I am asking members to desist from doing that. We have here a situation that will lead to disorder, and it is my job to keep the debate within the 402 Standing Orders that we have. I ask members to desist and continue with the debate.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will desist. I will simply point out that Mr Key does not know what he says on one issue from one moment to the next. On the issue of climate change, for example—the biggest issue facing the world at the present time—Mr Key said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.”, and the previous year said: “This is a complete and utter hoax. I am suspicious of the notion of global warming.” He is a man who says one thing one day and another thing the next day because he wants to be loved, wants to be liked, and does not care what he says along the way.

Of course, when it is pointed out that Mr Key is unreliable, does not know the facts, and tells different things to different people, he says: “This is a personal attack. I’m such a poor little National Party leader; please don’t pick on me any more. Those big nasty Labour Party bullies have been picking on me in the House all the way through yesterday, and I need some protection from those big, nasty, nasty bullies on the other side of the House.”

Who believes that this man can be a Prime Minister of New Zealand? Who believes that somebody who cannot even remember his position on the war in Iraq could possible be the Prime Minister of New Zealand? Mr Key cannot remember what his position on the Springbok Tour was. He cannot remember what his position was on global warming. He cannot remember almost anything. He cannot even remember where he lives for the purposes of the Electoral Act. He is not a man who inspires confidence. This man appeared on Morning Report this morning smiling so nervously that he looked like a Cheshire cat with constipation, waiting hopefully for some kind of pill to put him out of his misery and save him from the Labour Party.

Mr Key knows that he has made disastrous errors in the last few days. He knows the honeymoon is over, and he is now into relationship counselling in the National Party.

If we were to typify New Zealand today, we would have to say it is a country of very high interest rates, where mortgage stress is causing New Zealanders a great deal of hurt, where child abuse is absolutely out of control, and where emergency rooms throughout our hospitals are overcrowded and people cannot get the service they want. This is a Government so disappointed with and unwilling to talk about its own performance that all its members could do in the last couple of days is come into the House and hack away at the knees of the National Party.

Michael Cullen asked the question: “Who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand?”. I say that he should go and look at the polls—that is who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and that will not change. So what is the plan when one’s policies do not work? What is the plan for the Government when it has spent 8 or 9 years making an absolute hash of it? What does one do? Well, one starts to politicise the public service and turn it into some great arm of the Government, and then deny anybody else any right to make a comment about it by altering the Electoral Act to prevent any criticism whatsoever of the current Government. That is the broad plan.

One of the things we are most concerned about is the sham that is going on in the State Services Commission. This country has tens of thousands of State servants who do a good job, day in, day out, regardless of their political persuasion, and when they deal with other New Zealanders they do a good job without regard for the political persuasions of those New Zealanders. So why is it, then, that we cannot accept the need for the public service to be neutral? We know that Government members cannot accept that because they talk about it so very much.

Let me build a bit of a picture. Firstly, we had the situation where Minister Benson-Pope said: “I won’t have that woman in my office.” That comment related to the new manager of the Ministry for the Environment communications team. He conveyed that message to Mr Logan, the chief executive. Mr Logan said: “What am I going to do now?”, and he went to Dr Prebble, who is the commissioner himself. The commissioner has said that he advised Mr Logan on how to handle this matter. Mr Logan said he told Dr Prebble of the instructions clearly given to him by David Benson-Pope. Time unfolded, Ms Setchell lost her job, and the whole ruckus started to arise about the interference of the Minister.

Things got so bad in the middle of that, that the State Services Commissioner felt the need to sit down in front of his computer and write an article explaining what political neutrality is, and he published that article in the Dominion Post. The interesting thing is that when he sat there to consider this particular issue, he forgot the most important fact in it. He forgot why the issue arose in the first place. He somehow seemed to think that the sacking of Ms Setchell came out of the sky somewhere—that there was no particular reason for it other than the fact Mr Logan had decided there might be a conflict. The reality is that it is not plausible for anyone to defend Dr Prebble on the basis that he simply forgot what happened.

So here we have the State Services Commissioner, who forgot the most salient fact in this matter, now being required by the Government to lead an inquiry into what happened. The question that arises is: if, as we were told in the House today by the Minister of State Services and by Dr Cullen, this inquiry is into the handling of this issue by Mr Logan, and it is occurring because the Prime Minister was unhappy that Mr Logan did not let the acting commissioner, Mr Rennie, know about David Benson-Pope’s intervention, where does that leave Dr Prebble, because he is a man who also knew? So here we have the adviser to the culprit. In other words, Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan. Mr Logan told him all the relevant facts. Dr Prebble admits that. But now we have Mr Logan being investigated by Dr Prebble, who knew all the time what was going on and advised Mr Logan on what was supposed to happen. This is a whitewash of the worst kind.

It is my privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First. I have to say that right now is probably a timely moment to take a little bit of a pause in what is starting to sound like a House winding up for an election. I guess that makes this little contribution appropriate, because New Zealand First wants to take just a quiet moment to make something very clear to both the National Party and the Labour Party, who right now are locked in a clear battle for supremacy. We simply say that it is gloves off, folks, may the best team win. We are watching with interest, but those parties should understand very, very clearly that the debate on law and order is becoming a non-negotiable debate, as we watch some people—from within the public sector, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, and the Youth Court, and a range of other people—make some outlandish and ridiculous statements, many of which are now proven for what they are.

The latest report released by the Ministry of Justice is the report on youth offending statistics. Those statistics make a couple of things very clear. First, there have been no reliable statistics to date. It is stated in the report that the report itself has many defects and deficiencies because of the methodology that is used. So let us have no more nonsense about having the real oil on what the real statistics are. But let us be very, very clear: what we do now know from that report is that 43 percent of all apprehensions in this country are from people in the age group from 10 to 20 years. Forty-three percent of all apprehensions in New Zealand are of people aged from 10 to 20. New Zealand First is saying that that is enough. We mean to lower the age of criminal responsibility one way or another. Let me tell both National and Labour this: 82 percent of the population agrees with New Zealand First. The latest Stuff poll on the web says so right now.

My second point is that we have had enough of the platitudes and the nonsense surrounding gangs. I say to Mr Power that we do not care whether Labour stole his policy or he got an inside look at its announcements, or what the truth is on that. What we do know is that Murray McCully said a long time ago that the best source of policy advice for the National Party in the run-up to the last election was New Zealand First’s website. Is that not right, I say to Murray McCully? We know that. I was going to table a piece of paper that showed National’s original ideas for policy but I realised that it was a blank page. We were going to table a page of a good research database used by the National Party, but it is actually the home page for New Zealand First.

So let us have no more of that nonsense, but let members understand very clearly that New Zealand First believes that the only way to deal with gangs is to outlaw them. Everything else is rubbish. The very notion that a civilised society can tolerate in its midst a bunch of lawless people who prey on the misery of others is totally abhorrent to New Zealand First and will not be accepted. If these two parties want to enter into coalition negotiations for the Government benches after the next election, they should get these two points on board: first, outlaw gangs; and, second, lower the age of criminal responsibility. New Zealand First is deadly serious about these issues.

Bob Clarkson: You won’t be here.

RON MARK: There goes the old boy from somewhere. He yells: “You won’t be here.” If I had $1 for every time I heard that said about New Zealand First we would not have to work. Mr Clarkson is the man who is now rated as the biggest joke ever to be inflicted on Tauranga. He is the man whom Tauranga would prefer that he goes back to building and doing what he knows best, because he knows that he does not do this well at all, and Tauranga is the worse for it. So shut up and listen, sonny.

New Zealand First is absolutely adamant: outlaw gangs, and lower the age of criminal responsibility. It should no longer be acceptable for 43 percent of the people being apprehended in this country for breaking the law to be aged between 10 and 20. Let us have no more of the nonsense from the ministry saying: “Adult offending is as bad as youth offending.”, when the ministry knows very well that in the figures it is talking about in relation to the adult offender group there are 17 to 20-year-olds, who are actually young New Zealanders—youths. They are the sorts of people who in St Albans are rioting on the street outside out-of-control parties, and throwing bottles, bricks, and pieces of wood at the police when they are trying to help the injured. That is the problem that New Zealand First intends to deal with. If we cannot deal with it in this Parliament, we are sure as heck going to do it in the next one.

It has been a bad week for John Key, and the National Party knows it. It is written all over the faces of National members and it is in their body language. It started off with the National Party conference, when John Key made a poor speech and faux pas. The caucus is in disarray. Poor old Maurice Williamson said something about concentration camps; somebody else said something about Tim Groser and marijuana.

The keynote address was to be given by Alexander Downer. Alexander Downer wanted his speech to be on the record, but the National Party—the party of transparency and openness—refused to allow the media to go in, and I have found out why, because I have some of his speech.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a bit unfair of Mr Goff to go down that line. Mr Downer is, of course, the Australian Foreign Minister. The last thing the current Government of New Zealand would want is for his speech to be on the record.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order, Mr Brownlee. It is a frivolous comment that can lead to disorder.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can tell the House why National did not want his speech printed. Here is part of what he said: “what is going to matter [in the next election] is substance not stunts. The Leader of the Opposition … is a master of stunts. He does stunts very well. But he doesn’t do substance …”. Regardless of whom Alexander Downer was talking about, that was far too close to the bone for the National Party. It was, in fact, an almost perfect description of John Key.

I saw Facelift the other night, and that was even better. It portrayed John Key going up to the counter at McDonald’s. He spent some time looking at the menu. People were backing up behind him and they were getting frustrated. The guy was saying: “What do you want, Mr Key?”. Mr Key says: “What do you think I want? What would you like me to have?”. That was the caricature of the National Party leader—no substance, no policy, no direction, and no answers.

But it got worse for John Key during the week, because he got caught out, not once, not twice, but three times. He got caught out about Iraq. I cannot say that he was lying about Iraq, as he said other members were. I did note that he was a bit pathetic, like a little puppy dog, on morning television today, saying: “They are being so nasty to me.”; then he got up and gave a speech that was full of personal invective and abuse. But I will say that Mr Key was mistaken. He was mistaken three times. He said on the record—and Dr Lockwood Smith knows this, because he said exactly the same thing—that National would send troops to Iraq, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. That is what Dr Smith said. That is what Mr Key said. Now we find that John Key is blaming it all on Dr Brash; it was Dr Brash who thought that, not the National caucus! But this morning we heard from Mr Key’s office that, actually, it was the caucus policy and that is why the poor, inexperienced John Key got it wrong. His own press secretary called him inexperienced. That is why the country will not have John Key. They cannot rely on him. In a crisis he would go to pieces. He knows nothing, he contributes nothing, he says nothing, and he has no principles.

But it got worse. It was not just Iraq; it was also the joint therapeutics agency. He flip-flopped once, twice, three times. He did the interview with Audrey Young, a veteran reporter, then he said she got it wrong, then he flip-flopped again. But Audrey Young has it on tape. That shows who the liar was in that dispute. She has it on tape and she has witnesses. It is one thing to get it wrong, it is another thing to flip-flop, but then to cover it up by not telling the truth about Iraq and about the joint therapeutic agency—that is what New Zealanders will not tolerate.

Then there is the hypocrisy of the other issues, such as affordable housing. That was the keynote of his speech to the National Party conference—the boy who came from a State house, and good luck to him. He got a helping hand with his family from that Labour Government, but now he wants to deny other kids in the position he was in the chance to get a decent home. Mr Key says that affordable housing is National’s policy, but not in his own electorate, which is a bit upmarket for that—not in Hobsonville. That is a tragic case of double standards. No wonder John Armstrong wrote this morning that Key got “a drubbing, a thrashing, a trouncing … a hiding,” and I say he richly deserved that.

On behalf of the members on this side of the House, I urge the Minister of Defence to find himself the opportunity for a lie-down and a nice cup of tea, because he was very close to doing himself a serious mischief there and members on this side were getting quite concerned about him.

I am not going to respond to the details of the attacks that have come from members opposite today, aimed at the Leader of the Opposition. All I want to say to members opposite and to the public is this: at a time when New Zealanders are fearful about their ability to own houses because of rising inflation rates and rising interest rates, at a time when businesses involved in the export sector are concerned about their ability to continue to do business, and at a time when, each and every week, 737 New Zealanders pack up and move permanently to Australia, New Zealanders look to the people who have the LTDs and the flash offices—the Ministers of the Crown—and they ask what the Ministers will do to put matters right for our country. Those Ministers are charging around, emptying every rubbish bin they can find, and checking through ancient back copies of the Rodney and Waitemata Times to try to find out what John Key might have said when he was in the seventh form. That is what those members opposite are up to. They are a disgrace to the warrants they hold.

I want to spend just a minute on the issue that really should trouble members of this House, and that is whether they can continue to have confidence in the most senior public servant who holds office in this country, Dr Prebble. I say that for two reasons. Firstly, he has abandoned a long-accepted concept of neutrality within the Public Service, and we have yet to find out what will replace that longstanding rule. Secondly, there are grave questions now about the integrity, the honesty, and, indeed, the competence of some of those involved who hold senior Public Service offices.

What we do know, first of all, is that a senior Ministry for the Environment employee was sacked because some people did not like the politics of her partner. That is not something that has ever happened in this country. Right through the 1990s, Ministers of the National Government accepted that people who were personally close with those on the other side of politics could provide professional service. Now we find that Dr Prebble, the State Services Commissioner, has said it is OK to dispatch senior public servants for the reason that senior officials do not like their personal lives. That is something we have not accepted in this country, and members on this side now want to know what the new rules are, because when we find out what Dr Prebble’s new rules are, we will make up our minds whether we have confidence in him as the State Services Commissioner in this country.

There are also some serious issues that require explanation, and the means by which we will get those explanations is important to us. An issue is the credibility of the leadership of the State sector. Many questions need to be answered, first of all about Mr Logan, the head of the Ministry for the Environment. There are questions to be answered as to why he did not tell the Acting State Services Commissioner what he should have about his conversation with the Minister. There were questions for Mr Benson-Pope to answer, but they have now been answered, and we know what his fate was. There were questions—and those questions remain—about the State Services Commissioner, Dr Prebble, because he advised Mr Logan on the steps that are at the heart of the enquiry that is now under way, and he is the person who was also told by Mr Logan about the information that is potentially fatal to Mr Logan’s future in the public service. Arguably, he should share the same fate.

We have had two explanations from Dr Prebble. Firstly we were told he forgot the information, then on radio the other day we heard him say that he did not tell anyone because he did not think it was important. Well, both of those two explanations cannot be true. At least one of them has to be an untruth, and members of this House will want to hear a further explanation or rationalisation of those two before we can make up our minds as to whether we should have confidence in Dr Prebble.

We also want Dr Prebble to stand aside from this inquiry. He is the wrong person to conduct it. We will not have confidence in the results of the inquiry as long as he is a participant in it, and we will not have confidence in any decision that is made if he is there.

It is unusual to have a visit from Murray McCully to this House. I am wondering whether there are some numbers to be counted. Is that the reason he is here today? After all, he usually spends most of his time in the Cook Islands.

Today I want to talk about double standards. I wonder whether there are many people in this House who remember that old billboard campaign Wellington used to have. An anonymous group of people would go out overnight and stick up a billboard that looked like a newspaper billboard. Some very famous ones went up in the 1970s and the 1980s, and they were usually pointed at the double standards of politicians. Some I could tell members about include the very famous one where a person who spoke out on abortion in public was not against abortion in private life. Then there was the one about the person who was carrying on an extramarital affair whilst speaking about the need for family values.

The double standards posters were fantastic. They really exposed politicians to the core. They exposed their double values and double standards. That is what it was called, The Double Standard, as if it was a newspaper. We had a lot of laughs over the years, looking at those posters as they went up.

I think it is time that that anonymous group of people came out again and started putting up some more of those posters, because we have had an outbreak of double standards from the National Party lately. I will go through just three of them today. I know that members opposite are eager and anxious, and that they want to hear them.

Let us take the issue of political neutrality in the public sector. Today National members are all puffed up with self-righteous indignation over Public Service neutrality. They accuse the Government of meddling and interfering, and they are demanding political solutions. Well, let me just remind the House of the National Party’s approach to the Public Service. I will just look at some of the things that have been said.

Have those members forgotten that Don Brash called to get rid of James Buwalda from the Department of Labour? How politically threatening is that?

Have those members forgotten that John Key told Barry Matthews of the Department of Corrections that he would sack him? How politically menacing is that? Have they forgotten John Key saying that he would sack senior officials at the Department of Corrections as well? How politically neutral is that?

Have members opposite forgotten Murray McCully attacking Te Puni Kōkiri’s chief executive? Have they forgotten his despicable slur on Wellington’s top cops only a couple of years ago?

How about their short-term memory? Have they forgotten Gerry Brownlee’s attacks on Mark Prebble, Iain Rennie, and Hugh Logan? At the rate they are going there will not be a public servant left standing that has not been in the National Party’s firing line.

What is the right of reply for public servants? There is none—none at all. In thinking of The Double Standard billboard that one could get from that situation, it would have to be something like this. Members should imagine a photo of Gerry Brownlee saying: “Don’t stand in my way—Gerry Brown-eyes, State Services.”

Let me move to the second double standard—the double standard whereby National members demand that Ministers be truthful and not mislead the public, Parliament, or their electorate. That is fair enough; I agree with that. But where is the scrutiny by the National Party of a potential Minister?

Let us look at the headline on the front cover of the Sunday News. Most of us could not care a hoot about the contents of what is in this newspaper and do not care a hoot about what Mr Groser did outside Parliament. But here comes the important issue: has he told the truth to his leader? Has he told the truth to New Zealanders? Has he told the truth to the Sunday Star-Times, the New Zealand Herald, or the Sunday News?

Is Tim Groser telling the truth? Because if he is not, then that man should go. That man should go because he would have been telling a porky to his leader, to New Zealand, and to the media. I believe that matter is worthy of investigation—not into what he did outside Parliament, but into whether he told the truth to his leader. I do not believe that he did.

I am sure that everybody in the House saw the irony of that tarnished Minister, Annette King, talking about a double standard—that Minister, who could not come and deliver her truthful version of events to the House if she tripped over herself to try to get it here. Let us ask about her truthful standards and her performance in this House. This is a Minister who, through bluff and blunder, destroyed the public health system in New Zealand. She has taken this health system to a state where we no longer have a Government that trusts or respects our health professionals. The Government is deciding whether health professionals can have cheese on toast! That is what this Government is doing. Now the Government is deciding whether our health professionals can have a big chocolate bar. That is how it values and trusts our health service.

The ultimate irony from Annette King was when she said: “What about the National Party and its despicable slur on the top cop in Wellington?”. Well, what about the Prime Minister’s lies about—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that he cannot allege that another member is lying. The member will desist.

Hon TONY RYALL: What about the Prime Minister’s stories, totally inconsistent with the facts, on Peter Doone? What about that slur, which this Prime Minister cannot answer about? The Government opposite is on its last legs. We know that. We have been in a Government in its eighth and ninth years and we know what it is like.

If only the Government knew who we are meeting with this afternoon. If only the Government knew which of its friends we are meeting with this afternoon. Week after week the Government’s friends are coming to talk to the National Party, because the Government’s friends know that in less than a year it will be this side of the House that will be providing leadership to the future of the country of New Zealand. It will be John Key providing that leadership. It is a leadership that will contrast completely with Helen Clark.

How can she get up in the House and question John Key when she had so many stories about what she was doing in the back of the car at 140 kilometres an hour on the Canterbury Plains, when she had so many stories about that painting—did she paint it or did she not paint it—and when she had so many stories about the serviette with the Beehive picture? This is a Prime Minister who, time and time again, cannot be relied upon to tell the full story. How dare she try to say that John Key is not honest? The Prime Minister is really describing herself when she tries to make those allegations against John Key, which this Government is so desperate to do.

Members should look at the Government’s appalling behaviour. This is a Government that is on its last legs. When there is speculation about Maryan Street and Shane Jones going into Cabinet as the answer to the Government’s problems, we know it really is on its last legs. What about question time today? Was there one Government policy idea today? There was not one—and the Government goes on about us? Was there one positive announcement that will actually get people into their own homes? There were none whatsoever. Was there any Government announcement about how interest rates will get under control? There was not one.

Was there one Government announcement about what it will do about an 83-year-old woman who sat on a hospital trolley in North Shore Hospital for 4 days under fluorescent lights with a broken hip, and no food, drink, or pain relief? What did Pete Hodgson say about that? He said: “Oh, I don’t know anything about it.” That is what he said—“I don’t know anything about it.” He is the Minister of Health and he should be reading the jolly papers. That story was reported in the papers. The daughter told about the pain her mother suffered. And what is this Government doing? It is happy that an 83-year-old woman can lie on a trolley under fluorescent lights for 4 days with no respite at all.

What about the older retired woman in Tauranga who had to pay $15,000 for her own hip replacement because she was not sick enough to qualify for an operation? Even though she was in interminable pain, the Government did nothing. The Government did nothing about that. These people are being forced to pay for their own operations. We have a health system that is falling apart. The health system has $5 billion extra and fewer people are getting care. If a person breaks his or her leg in Greymouth today, do members know where that person will go to get treated? It will be Blenheim! That is what we get under this Labour Government: a charity hospital operating under a Labour Government.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. What I have just heard in the House following that speech was applause for the spokesperson on health for the National Party, whose greatest issues in health as far as he is concerned are cheese and chocolate. When one gets down to that level of the issues and one cannot raise anything of any substance, it is time to go. I think it is also the view in that member’s electorate that it is time for him to go.

The National Party conference of 2007 was not a good one for National. It was an even worse one for John Key. I ask members to imagine how John Key would have felt, the day after the conference, when he woke up and thought to himself: “My God, I’ve stuffed that up. Bill, please spare me the execution.” But, you see, that is what happens. When one is a sprinter who jumps from cloud to cloud—which is how Bill English described John Key—when it comes to the real issues, one is unable to cope. The leader of the National Party is under pressure. Splits and divisions are starting to show. His days are numbered. We can see the grins on the faces of the National Party members on the front bench. They are grinning to themselves cheek to cheek, and thinking: “Your time is over, John. Sorry.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Yes. Mr John Key’s days are numbered. I heard an interview on Morning Report this morning. Is it not incredible that John Key stands up in this House today and calls everybody a liar, when he told the interviewer this morning that Labour members are vindictive and are getting into personality politics? That is exactly what he did in the House today. He feels that nobody likes him. Well, what does he expect? If he cannot be upfront, tell the truth, and put the issues on the table, he is going to lose popularity amongst his supporters.

Election 2008 is going to be about leadership—good, strong, dependable, reliable, and honest leadership. When we step up before the people and we put our policies on the table, that is what they expect us to deliver. There are no flip-flops. There is no stealing of other parties’ policies. What was John Key’s position on Iraq? What was his position on nuclear ships entering New Zealand waters? What was his position on KiwiSaver? What is he saying now? National totally supports them. What was his position on global warming? It was a figment of our imagination! Now he is talking as if he has discovered it. Is not that double standards? There is a word that we are not allowed to use in this House, but I am going to use one starting with “h”: hōhā—hōhā katoa tātou. We are tired of it. We want to see some substance and we want to hear some truths mentioned in this House. I know you are looking at me in that way Mr Assistant Speaker, but when I talk about leadership I talk about the strong leadership from our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She is a leader who walks amongst the people—the big, the small, the rural, the urban—te iti, me te rahi—to listen to the issues that they are faced with on a day-to-day basis.

I want to make a few points about our visit to Tai Tokerau, Northland, 1 week ago. Northland in the 1990s was considered to be the most depressed area of our country. It was an embarrassment to the Government of the day. Nobody can say that now. If we go to Northland now, there are no 18 and 19-year-old unemployed Māori. Their unemployment rate is well below 4 percent. In fact, in the north they have a problem with getting skilled labour. They have a labour shortage. No one has ever been able to say that about the north over the past three or four decades. Now they have a problem with skill shortages.

What does that tell us? It tells us that something is happening in the north that is working. There is a level of confidence in the north that is making people get up and make decisions about how they manage their own lives. New businesses are opening on a very regular basis. Now they are screaming out to the Government: “Help us find skilled labour.” There are health and educational groups taking control of their circumstances. We have seen that first hand in the north over the past 2 weeks.

Is it not interesting that when we do speak to these people, we ask them the question: “What is it that you do that is improving your circumstances in your particular community?”. What do they say? They say that there is strong leadership, dependable leadership, reliable leadership, and good strong Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Apart from this two-party debate, the hot topic on everybody’s lips is who can be the toughest on gangs. The Māori Party, never being one to shirk from a challenge, has some tough talk of our own to bring to this debate. We urge all parties in this House to take the time to familiarise themselves with the ground-breaking international research that is revealing that more police, more prison, and more punishment have not stopped gang violence. The research I am referring to is entitled Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, which has just been released from the Justice Policy Institute in Washington. The international research is telling us that the billions of dollars spent on traditional gang suppression activities have failed to promote public safety and, in fact, are often counter-productive.

Gang Wars describes two key strategies that will help us avoid going down a flawed, anti-gang path to failure. There is the Los Angeles and Chicago approach of tough-talking elimination through enforcement. We could call this the “Labour - New Zealand First - National crack down on gangs and get heaps of votes for next year” method. Or there is the New York and Toronto approach that is committed towards ensuring public safety through gang and community engagement. This is the approach that the Māori Party favours, in our emphasis on public safety and prevention, by promoting jobs and education and encouraging youth to turn away from gang activity.

The numbers make it blatantly clear that there is no argument about which way works. The results speak for themselves. Two years ago Los Angeles police reported 11,402 gang-related crimes, and New York police reported 520. The research cites extensive evidence that the use of social resources such as job training, mentoring, after-school activities, and recreational programmes has made significant dents in gang violence, while heavy reliance on police enforcement has far less impact. Not long ago we attended a hui of gang leaders in Auckland. Each of the 25 current gang leaders who attended the hui had a job, one of them had an economic proposal that he wanted support for, and all of them spoke of the value of education for their children and grandchildren.

We must confront the facts, rather than endlessly sharpen the political knives in order to engage in futile battles against gang members. We need to ensure that we all know what the problem is in the first place. This is far too serious a matter to indulge in a game of who can talk tougher on stamping out gangs and gangsters. The Washington report concluded that heavy-handed suppression tactics can actually increase gang cohesion, while failing to reduce violence. No one who truly cares about the future of this nation can afford to ignore leading-edge research that warns against legislation to stiffen penalties for gang-related crime. Sure, gangs are in our face, so the war on gangs has become an easy target for politicians. But we must be committed to solutions, not just to quick-fix populist reactions. We must take bold action and support the kinds of prevention programmes that are already showing reductions in violence and crime. Aggressive gang enforcement is not the answer. Investing in jobs, schools, a decent wage, and programmes that give young people good reason to leave gangs is shown by the US research to have promising impacts on reducing crime and violence.

We must work together to reduce poverty, to address the ongoing alienation that so many of our young people are expressing, and then to target the right problem with the right solution. At another hui that the Māori Party attended at Manurewa with different gang leaders—senior leaders—they told us about strategies they are working on to contain inter-gang violence and to discourage the new youth neighbourhood gangs from the street fighting that has developed in Auckland and other cities. Working with them, we talked about how they had drawn up a list of 85 youth gang leaders from these gangs of the style of the Los Angeles gangs the Bloods and the Crips, and how they were working with those groups to defuse street violence. In the last few months that violence has decreased.

We need to ensure that the investment we make in creating healthy communities will have the best results in the widest interests of public safety and community well-being. It is not about talking tough; it is about facing facts, it is about engaging gangs in the communities in which they live, and it is about acting smart. Tēnā koe.

We had a speech today from an Associate Minister of Health Mita Ririnui in which he said that all the National Party could talk about was cheese toasties in the health system. I wonder where that man was today during question time, when my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out that an 83-year-old woman had been left for 4 days on a trolley in North Shore Hospital without drink, without food, and without painkillers. This woman had a broken pelvis and suffers from dementia. That Associate Minister of Health did not even know anything about it. It was in the local newspapers, and the New Zealand Herald, and he could not even tell us about it.

Another Associate Minister of Health could not even keep himself awake long enough to hear about that tragic story today. All he can say is: “What about the cheese toasties?”. It is significantly more important than that; it is about the trust and the support that we give to the health professionals. When we are trying to tell health professionals that they cannot have a cheese toastie between surgery, because it is bad for them, we are showing them utterly and absolutely no faith whatsoever.

The public actually care about the health system, and they care about interest rates. Have we heard one thing from the Minister of Finance about interest rates, and what he is going to do with his Government’s spending to help to bring down those interest rates? We have heard not one word. All we hear from that Minister of Finance is that he is trawling through back issues of the Rodney and Waitemata Times, a newspaper that even I had not heard about until he raised it—clearly his bedtime reading. That Minister of Finance needs to get his priorities right. The public do not care about what John Key said when he was a seventh-former. What they do care about is what John Key is going to do when he leads us into the election next year and he comes out the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He will be the best Prime Minister this country has ever seen. He is a man who achieves. He is not a man who breeds on the politics of envy like nasty little Michael Cullen. Michael Cullen’s maiden speech in the House was all about how much he hated the farming community, and he has gone to every length to show exactly that is where his sentiments are.

The public of New Zealand care about the education system. They care about the fact that 20 percent of all New Zealand children leave school without being able to read, write, or do arithmetic to their chronological age, and that statistic is even worse for the Māori population. It is a shocking statistic. All that that Minister over there—Steve Maharey, who is off preparing his job application to Massey University—can say is “Oh, well, some kids are doing really well.” Well, we know that, because the gaps in New Zealand are getting bigger and bigger, day in and day out. That is why 730 New Zealanders move permanently to Australia every single week under this Labour Government.

I will tell members what else New Zealanders care about; they care about child abuse. The people in this country care about child abuse. I have actually had a gutsful of people in the media blaming Māori for child abuse—that is utter rubbish. Child abuse is caused by the people who kill their children, beat them, and torture them. Those are the people who cause child abuse. Their race is totally irrespective of anything else, and I say that because it is true. Why do people do this? Well, they certainly are not people like you and me, I say to other members. They do not wake up in the morning and think constantly about how they can make life for their children better. These people have no responsibility and no knowledge of what is expected of them. They are riddled with drugs. They are riddled with a crime wave that is right throughout the community, and they are also people who spend their entire life waiting for a handout from somewhere and never thinking about the wonderful potential that they have themselves, and the wonderful potential that their children have.

This Government has had no answer to child abuse in this country, not one answer, except it put David Benson-Pope in charge of it last year, and what a disgrace! We heard from Helen Clark that she was going to find clusters of these difficult families. We were going to have clusters everywhere. Apparently Work and Income cannot look up its records to find out itself. And what happened to these clusters? Well, they clearly have not made a scrap of difference. Every week, almost—it seems to me—we have another story of child abuse. Every 5 weeks a child is killed in this country by his or her supposed caregiver. I say that because the term “caregiver” is such an insult when used for those people.

I look at law and order, which is another issue that New Zealanders care about, and they care about it for several reasons. This country is paid for by decent New Zealanders who go about their business not breaking the law, looking after their families, and doing the right thing. Those people, and particularly the poorest people of New Zealand, are the people who suffer the most from lawlessness. That is because they do not have monitored alarms. They do not have security firms patrolling the streets. Those people have been left aside by Helen Clark, who is only interested in digging up dirt from John Key’s trash cans.

I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that the Justice Policy Institute, which Dr Pita Sharples has just been talking about, is not a Government agency; it is simply an anti-gang group of lefties.

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

RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to correct that statement. It is not an anti-gang group of lefties; it is a pro-gang—

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

RON MARK: I am correcting the statement, Mr Assistant Speaker. My statement was incorrect and it misled the House, and I was seeking to correct that statement. It is a pro-gang group of lefties.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Mark for that.

RON MARK: I seek leave of the House to table the document Gang Wars, which Dr Sharples was speaking of.

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

RON MARK: I seek leave of the House to table the document Separating Fact from Fiction: The Truth Behind the Justice Policy Institute report Gang Wars.

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

RON MARK: I seek leave to table a document from Know Gangs in the United States of America, which separates fact from fiction.

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

If there is any message that the leader of the National Party, John Key, should take from this week’s activities in the House, despite his state of absolute and total confusion, the message should be a pretty simple one. The Labour Party does not want him as its leader. The National Party is absolutely welcome to that man as its leader, and he can get up at any conference he wants up and down New Zealand and proclaim himself as Labour’s leader and we will decline, decline, decline. It does not matter how focused this Government is on jobs and how committed it is on reducing unemployment in this country, there is no vacancy in the leadership of the Labour Party. That is an undeniable fact that any single observer of politics should know. It astounds me that John Key, the Leader of the Opposition, who is paid the same salary as a Cabinet Minister, cannot work out that he is not welcome to lead the Labour Party.

It has been a particularly bad week for John Key, but it was a bad week in the last week of the last sitting period as well. What we have learnt about John Key is that this man is very prone to criticism. He does not like being criticised, and he does not like any negativity being spread around about him. When Colin James wrote that very perceptive article about his antics on the therapeutic joint regulator with Australia in that last week of the last sitting period, John Key came into this House like a deflated balloon and sat there looking grumpy, with his shoulders and his head down, and nobody noticed. To be fair, there was another little political drama on at the time. But the seeds were sown in that week, when we started to see that the leader could not quite take the heat of this Chamber.

Then we went into the adjournment, and I think it is fair to say that most observers in politics assumed that John Key was going to have a fantastic National Party conference. It really was my opinion, and I thought that was going to happen. He had had quite a good run in the polls. He had had very soft little feature pieces about himself. People were talking about him, and I thought: “How could you possibly stuff up going to speak to your own party faithful at that weekend?”. One would think it would be a coronation. One would think he would walk in there on water. What did we find? The conference was a comprehensive disaster. The one thing that should go well for one in politics is one’s own party conference. The National Party members are interjecting—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the speaker, but I just ask your advice on this. That member cannot stand up at her bench and barrack while a member is on his feet giving a speech, under your call. That member over there beside Mr Clarkson stood, barracked, and continued standing right through that speech. That is out of order, and I would ask for your assistance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Cosgrove. I did actually call the member to order, because it is not in order to move to facilitate interjection. I advise the member to look at Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1.

DARREN HUGHES: I have been here only 5 years but I have never seen a member stand on her pins and interject and screech like a banshee from the background of the National Party Opposition benches. Dr Blue’s behaviour just now highlights the enormous sensitivity the National Party is feeling at the present time. After yesterday’s blood bath in here, when the front bench of Labour mowed down the Leader of the Opposition, it was pretty clear to me that the National Party had a strategy from its meeting this morning. Mr McCully came back to Wellington and he said: “We’ve got to go into the House hard today.” So they were all prepped up and wound up. They were going to come into the House and were not going to put up with anything.

How do I know that? At the moment Jacqui Dean is screeching out, and she yelled out all during question time. One does not hear a lot from Jacqui Dean, it is fair to say. She is not one of the great heavyweights in New Zealand politics, but she was speaking out. Chris Auchinvole, who is a normally a member who speaks in the evening, was chirping away all through question time. David Bennett, that great strategist in politics, was wound up and speaking, and poor old Gerry Brownlee, who is not normally working by this stage of the week, even got up and made a couple of points of order as well to try to defend it. They had obviously said: “We are not going to sit there and take it. Let’s go in there and show how tough we are.” The problem is that if a party has a strategy, the cleverest thing to do is to make it look as if the party does not have a strategy. Of course, this point was lost on those National front-bench potentials Jacqui Dean, Chris Auchinvole, David Bennett, and one or two of the others.

You know, the conference was extraordinary, and I noticed two things about it. The first was that John Key decided he would walk in to a conference theme, like an American politician. He ran a website and said: “I can’t decide what song I want to walk into my own conference to—could you decide for me?”. It is a bit like when he goes to McDonald’s to order a Happy Meal, and when he is asked: “What would you like, sir?” he says: “Oh, no—what would you like me to have?”. He is not quite sure what he should order; he would like the people to decide for him. Mr Key finally decided on a very good Coldplay song—Dr Cullen read some of it out to us—the great song “Clocks”. The second paragraph is:

Confusion that never stops

The closing walls and ticking clocks

Gonna come back and take you home

I could not stop, that you now know …

Cursed missed opportunities

Am I part of the cure

Or am I part of the disease

Well, it is pretty clear that the National Party leader is now part of the problem in that regard. When he walked in to that Coldplay song, it just described the week he was about to have. Members should remember that this was before he declared himself to be the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party.

The other thing I thought was really interesting about the National Party conference was the way it looked. National members went to the Langham Hotel’s ballroom. When the camera panned around, I did not see many faces that were not white at the National Party conference. I did not see a modern, 21st century, multicultural New Zealand there. I saw a lot of white New Zealanders—Pākehā New Zealanders. That is a pretty good thing. I am a white New Zealander myself. I am in favour of Pākehā New Zealanders. I saw a lot of older people. I am in favour of them, too. I would not mind being one, one day. But this country is broader than just that. This is a party that claims to have a revival going on, yet its conference room floor did not look like New Zealand, and that is a fundamental problem. Some of the smarter ones, like Jonathan Coleman, actually know that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.