General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Last week we saw the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, yet again have to defend his own competency, following his ill-judged attack on the Prime Minister’s trip to the United States. Yet again the media were left questioning his inexperience, lack of depth, and poor judgment. Mr Key’s claim that the trip to Washington was a foreign policy failure, said Colin Espiner in the Press, was “wide of the mark. In fact, it’s an embarrassing indictment of National’s own slippery grasp of foreign affairs.”

If members think that is bad enough, let us listen to what Colin James, one of the most respected political analysts in the media, said. Those members laugh, but that is a fact. “So what was John Key up to sniping at Helen Clark while she was in Washington? It read”, he said, “like petty domestic politics when the imperative was strategic foreign policy.” Strategic foreign policy from John Key! One would have to be joking. But Colin James went on to ask: “Was this another example of John Key sound biting himself out of the gravitas he would need as Prime Minister?”. Shallow—that is the judgment of the news media. “Was this a foreign policy failure? No.”, said Audrey Young in the New Zealand Herald. “In fact, it was a huge milestone in the relationship between New Zealand and the United States.”

Once again John Key showed himself to fall well short of the mark when it came to leadership. Let us listen to it—petty, shallow, stupid, prat, poor grasp of the facts, plain wrong. Those are not my words. That is the news media’s indictment of John Key’s failure to come up to the mark in foreign policy or in any other area. I would like to ask Mr McCully where the so-called panel of experts, designed to keep John Key out of trouble, was when it came to an area where he is known to be utterly ignorant. Was Mr McCully working under Bill English’s instruction to say John Key should be allowed to fall into the pit—because Bill English is sitting there with a quiet smile on his face, as John Key once again fails to come up to the mark of leadership?

I want to ask Mr Key this. A couple of weeks ago he was talking about bipartisanship and how our country should have its major parties working together in foreign affairs and trade. He said one thing; his actions were the opposite of that. I tell Mr Key there is one thing that New Zealanders really cannot stand, and it is politicians bagging their own country on issues of foreign policy and trade. They do not like it at the best of times, but when the comments are so obviously, patently, self-interested, partisan, and utterly inaccurate, they treat such politicians with contempt. That is what we should show to Mr Key for shooting himself in the foot on this occasion. It shows that this National Opposition is not even up to the role of being in Opposition, let alone ready to take on the responsibilities of Government. It wants the perks of power, but it does not have the competency to do the job.

It was interesting to hear a comment from a man who was sitting behind Mr Key as the plane was sitting on the runway at Waitangi. Mr Key was saying to Kevin Taylor, who was sitting beside him, as the Air Force plane was getting ready to go out: “Is that my plane, Kevin?”. Kevin said: “Yes, it is, sir.” John said: “Well, when I’m Prime Minister we’re going to have a much better one than that. We’re going to use it all the time.” That is what Mr Key wants from politics. I tell Mr Key that that is true. He knows he said it. He was overheard saying it in the company of other people. People in this country do not respect shallowness. They are disdainful of the back-flipping—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is a relatively new member, and I should point out to him that if, in fact, he wants to make a personal explanation on this matter he should make it immediately. Otherwise, it goes into the record and is accepted as a fact.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated; I will deal with this. That is not a point of order, and the member will be seated.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We would be happy to give Trevor Mallard leave to make a personal explanation for his disgraceful behaviour in the press gallery yesterday.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order, either.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two things that the New Zealand electorate does not like. It does not like the inconsistency of people who flip-flop on every issue. John Key said that climate change was a hoax 12 months ago, and suddenly it is the biggest problem facing New Zealand. The electorate hates double standards.

I would like to commend the Speaker for taking so seriously the exclusion of an accredited parliamentary press gallery journalist, Nick Wang, from a photo opportunity on the 8th floor of the Beehive last Monday. The event was a meeting between the Chinese Vice-Premier, Zeng Peiyan, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, in Dr Cullen’s office. It is completely unacceptable that Mr Wang was excluded for political reasons, with the process of exclusion being initiated by an intelligence official from the Chinese Embassy in Wellington. The press gallery has united in support of Mr Wang, with press gallery chairwoman, Marie McNicholas, explaining that the police have a security role and are not supposed to be the “embarrassment police” to shield visiting politicians from critical attention.

We know that the Chinese Government does not brook dissent in its own country and that democracy advocates are treated harshly there. We also know, from instances around the world, that the Chinese Government puts pressure on foreign Governments to protect, if possible, visiting Chinese leaders from exposure to protest or difficult questions from the media.

In 1999 the New Zealand Police bowed to the wishes of the Chinese Government and kept protesters well away from the visiting Chinese President, Jiang Zemin—even putting buses in the way so that the President would not see the protesters. In December 2000 the Justice and Electoral Committee published the results of a parliamentary inquiry into the police actions against the demonstrators in 1999, and recommended that police general instructions be reworked, “emphasising that freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly are the starting point for the Police”.

Since then the policing of visits made by Chinese dignitaries has improved. My late colleague Rod Donald held a Tibetan flag on the steps of Parliament when a Chinese leader visited a couple of years ago, and he received almost universal sympathy from this Parliament, the Government, and the people of New Zealand when Chinese security officers tried to block him. However, I think our Government has to bear some responsibility for the police now thinking that they can act as the “embarrassment police”, to use Marie McNicholas’ words.

The Government kept the latest visit by the Chinese Vice-Premier quiet until the last moment, with notification to the media being in the ministerial diary only last Friday afternoon for Wellington events on the Monday. This repeats the short notice given to the visit last October by the Chinese Commerce Minister, Bo Xilai, when the media was advised of his visit only the day he arrived in the country. The Minister of Trade, Mr Phil Goff, said at the time: “… you could assume that China was sensitive to the fact that there may be protests at the meeting and we try to accommodate their needs in terms of allowing some dignity for the Minister.”

Senior Constable Dan O’Connell was clearly trying to “accommodate their needs”, to use Mr Goff’s phrase, when he said to Nick Wang outside the Beehive theatrette that they—presumably the Chinese—did not want his presence there and that if he did not leave they would cancel the ceremony. Mr Wang was eventually allowed to stay, but earlier he had been refused entry to the advertised media photo opportunity in Dr Cullen’s office. The videotape shows a Chinese security officer from the Chinese Embassy in Wellington talking to a New Zealand police officer, immediately after which she came over to Mr Wang and said that she had been told that he was Falun Gong and that “security issues” were involved.

This gives lie to a statement made by Superintendent Tony McLeod on radio this morning that the police were “absolutely not” responding to pressure from the Chinese delegation. Superintendent McLeod’s response is worrying, particularly when taken together with Inspector Bruce Blaney’s comment in this morning’s paper that Mr Wang was a “genuine security risk” and Inspector Blaney’s claim that he was “yelling and shouting”. Again, the video gives lie to this.

It is unacceptable for our police to imitate China’s repressive approach, where they commonly clamp down on a critical journalist and then claim it was all the journalist’s fault. That is exactly what our police did when they allowed the tame Chinese media into the Vice-Premier’s meet and greet with Dr Cullen, but then excluded an independent New Zealand journalist.

We live in a democracy. We cannot import repressive Chinese techniques into our own Parliament. This is a very serious issue. We must get an apology from the police and get them to retract their attacks on Mr Wang. Their behaviour is unacceptable if this House is to operate properly.

I have only one comment to make on Mr Goff’s contribution—that is, I look forward to the day that is coming very soon when John Key is by far the most preferred person for Prime Minister of New Zealand. I will tell people one thing for free: accountability is on the way back. That party opposite is not prepared to deliver any accountability for the fiasco involving the Auckland laboratory contract. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member knows he cannot call another member or party corrupt or a liar. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I didn’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member used the words “corrupt and lying”, and he cannot do that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I was referring to those members’ good friend, who is not a member of Parliament but is a lying, corrupt person who has deceived the Auckland District Health Board.

Hon TONY RYALL: “A lying, corrupt person”. Well, why did the Minister’s mates sign the contract with the lying, corrupt person? That is what Trevor Mallard has called Dr Bierre. He said he was a liar and corrupt. But the Minister’s mates signed the contract, knowing that he was lying and using insider information. His mates signed the contract. Wayne Brown, Pat Snedden, and Kay McKelvie were all appointed by the Labour Party. They are all the Minister’s appointees on the district health board. They knew Dr Bierre used insider information—first mover advantage—to get the lead in the laboratory contracts in Auckland. That Minister’s mates signed the contract, knowing that.

Where is Mr Mallard now? He used the words “lying and corrupt”, but it was his mates and the appointed hand-picked chairman of the district health boards in Auckland who signed the contract with Dr Bierre. That is the reason why this contract has been ruled out of order by the High Court of New Zealand. A judge said that it is inexplicable. He said that it cannot be comprehended that the Auckland district health boards signed a contract with one of their own members after they had discovered that he had used the information he had gained as a member. They went and gave him the contract. It is incredibly serious and, as Mr English says, they could do it again—and I am going to get on to that.

What has happened here is that Dr Bierre was involved in shaping all the thinking of the district health boards on the Auckland laboratory contracts. He knew how much savings they wanted to make. He knew the way the tender would be run. He knew what the expectations of the board were in the contract, and the board told Diagnostic Medlab something completely different from what it was actually thinking. Dr Bierre put in the tender and the Government’s hand-picked district health board chairman, appointed by the Government, signed off on that contract.

Those board members knew that Dr Bierre had been intimately involved in the terms and conditions of that contract. They knew that they were at a meeting only a month or two before the contracts came in, when Dr Bierre briefed the district health board chairman on how they should handle the contract. The Government’s hand-picked appointees went ahead and signed the contract, and a judge of the High Court said that that was wrong and should not be allowed to stand. Since that time the Prime Minister has described Dr Bierre as duplicitous and the Minister of Health has said that Dr Bierre broke the law, yet neither is prepared to say that that sort of person should not be allowed to contract with the public health system in New Zealand.

Where is the accountability, I ask the Minister. This is the most unprecedented action taken by the High Court. It has overturned a half-billion-dollar contract—$500 million—because the Labour Government’s appointees did not follow the basic principles of conflict of interest. They knew Dr Bierre was intimately involved in the terms and conditions of this contract, yet they signed the contract. What is their cover? It is: “The Audit Office said it was OK.” Well, the Audit Office said it was a very, very narrow interpretation that it gave. So that cover is blown. Then they said that their lawyers gave it the OK. Their in-house counsel gave it the OK. It sounds to me as though the people on the Auckland District Health Board were looking for some cover to allow them to give this contract to Dr Bierre—a man they had been involved with from the very beginning in setting up this deal. It is absolutely appalling.

If accountability is on the way back, it may as well be on the way back from now. Let us hear the story told again. Dr Bierre appeared on the ticket of Citizens and Ratepayers and was elected in late 2004. He was elected as a Tory in late 2004. Within 5 months he was in to see the manager of funding and planning, Dr Denis Jury, saying that he wanted some money. He was on the board. Dr Bierre was in to see Dr Denis Jury within 5 months, saying that he wanted some money. Dr Denis Jury said “No”.

Then within another 4 months Dr Bierre was off to see his good friend Dr Paul Hutchison, who told him to write him a letter and he would get in touch with Wayne Brown, the chairman. That is exactly what happened. They had a conversation. Dr Hutchison told him to write to him. It was jacked-up. The correspondence was jacked-up between Dr Paul Hutchison and Dr Bierre. At that time Dr Paul Hutchison was the National Party spokesperson on health and at that time New Zealand was in election mode. None the less, Dr Hutchison told Dr Bierre to write to him and he would write to Dr Wayne Brown, and that is precisely what happened. Dr Bierre was running out of money. He was closing down his lab. He went to his mate Dr Paul Hutchison, and Dr Paul Hutchison said: “That’s OK. You write to me and I’ll write to Wayne Brown.”

So he did write to Wayne Brown, and when Wayne Brown got that letter, he learnt for the first time what Dr Bierre was up to. He did not know. At that time Wayne Brown wrote to Dr Bierre and said: “Watch it. You may be in breach of two statutes.” He named the statutes. In the event, the judge found that those are precisely the two statutes that Dr Bierre was in breach of—the two statutes named by Wayne Brown in July 2005. Then what happened was that Dr Bierre wrote back to Wayne Brown and said: “It’s OK, I’m out of here. It’s OK, I am mothballing my practice. It’s OK.” And the judge said of Mr Wayne Brown, in effect: “You should not have believed him. In effect, you should not have believed him. That is the mistake that you made, Mr Chairman.”

Those are the circumstances. If we are to talk about accountability, and if accountability is on the way back, then let us remind ourselves that the Tories are in this, donkey deep. Let us remind ourselves that the running mate of Dr Bierre is one Jackie Blue—on the same Citizens and Ratepayers ticket. They are very good friends, and one helped the other on election day later in 2005. That is a fact. Have we heard from Dr Jackie Blue in the last 8 days? Have we heard a whisper? She was on the board, she is in this House, and everyone in the National Party except Dr Jackie Blue has spoken up. Why might this be? That member has not yet said a word. What did she have to say about her time on the board? What did she have to say about—

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. An accusation was made by Trevor Mallard about what sort of cut Jackie Blue got. Madam Assistant Speaker, I would like you to either ask the member to withdraw and apologise or kick him out—one of the two.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I ask whether the member said that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I said: “Did she get a cut?”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think that it is a suggestion of corruption. The member should withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If accountability is on the way back, then how is it that Wayne Brown—who is now despised by the National Party as something of this Government’s lackey and as something of the Minister’s mate—that very same person, was appointed to the health system in 1992? For years under the previous National Government this same gentleman served that Government as he has served this one. How is it that Ross Keenan—who is now the bad man in the piece, now someone who is another one of the Minister’s mates, and now someone who is a lackey—was first appointed under the previous National Government? Where is the accountability? If accountability is on the way back, then I heard nothing of that in Tony Ryall’s speech.

How is it that the current National Party health spokesperson thinks that Dr Bierre is a bad guy, when the previous National Party health spokesperson not only thinks that he is a good guy but also holds him in “personal high regard”, and went off to Wayne Brown during an election campaign, signing himself as the National health spokesperson and prospectively the incoming Minister—thank God that did not happen—saying that he needs to be considered? Where is the accountability there?

The reason this Government is on the way down is that we have incompetent Ministers overseeing all of the core, important services for the public—whether it is in the important area of health, which has been highlighted by Tony Ryall; whether it has been in key areas like public safety and corrections, which were highlighted by my colleague Simon Power; or whether it has been in a basic area like education, where Katherine Rich has been exposing incompetency. In fact, it is hard to think of a single public service that is currently being run competently.

This debacle over the half-billion-dollar contract with the Auckland District Health Board says three things about the Government. The first is that there is a lack of basic competency. News of the contract was right through the New Zealand Herald and the media. Everybody knew that there was this controversy about a member of the district health board getting a half-billion-dollar contract. The Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, did absolutely nothing until we are now at the point whereby not only is a core public health service at risk but we have a multimillion-dollar bill coming to the taxpayer.

The second thing this debacle says about this Government is that there is a complete lack of accountability. Here we have a blatant conflict of interest on the biggest contract I have ever heard of—worth over half a billion dollars—yet a damning High Court decision was released 2½ weeks ago and nobody is accountable. The worst thing is that the Minister of Health has the audacity to say that it is Paul Hutchison’s fault. Well, only one member of Parliament was mentioned in the High Court judgment, and that was in the context of a comment of praise for Paul Hutchison’s alerting the district health board to that conflict of interest.

Then we have the really worrying feature, which is that the Government, whether in corrections, education, or health, does not learn the lessons of its debacles. Here we have Dr Bierre damned by every Minister in this Government, but in the next breath they are still happy to do business with him and for him to be responsible for those hundreds of thousands of lab tests for the people of Auckland.

Government members’ debates have assumed that this debate about lab testing is only about Auckland. I will tell the House what is going on in Nelson, because I fear for the million people in Auckland who will have the same sort of debacle. We have had a contract process also take place in our area, to which the Minister of Health gave his approval. Let us see what has happened to our lab services this year—and Auckland members might take note as to what will happen after 1 July. Our general practitioners’ spokesperson Graham Loveridge noted that where we used to have STD test results within 24 hours, it now takes 7 days. Let us be honest—what does that mean? It means that those diseases will spread further. We have the example of a dear gentleman who receives Warfarin for stroke protection who has consistently, for the last 2 years, been able to get his test results within 24 hours. He is now waiting for 7 days. As people with a medical background would know, that is a life and death issue for such patients. So I wrote to the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, and asked him where the assurances were from the district health board that there would be no deterioration in the quality of lab services for my constituents. The Minister of Health said that it was nothing to do with him—but he had approved the contract. I have the very letter in which he approved it.

You see, the rot runs deep. The very contract process that has been set for lab services in Auckland and Nelson was one that was directed by this Government. In 2002 this Labour Government transferred the responsibilities for lab testing from Health Benefits Ltd to the district health boards with one intent and one intent alone—for the district health boards to have the dirty job of trying to reduce costs, regardless of the consequences for patients. The people of Nelson have had a deteriorating lab service as a consequence of this Government’s decision, and now the people of Auckland are facing the same sort of consequence.

All the huff and puff about the Auckland District Health Board gives the National Party a distraction. It gives those members a distraction from the real issues that they have failed to deal with—that is, they have never told this House what it is that they stand for. Everything else that they have talked about is nothing but a mere distraction. [Interruption] We get a lot of heckling from that side of the Chamber, but there is really no substance in it. The Hon Tony Ryall’s contribution, when he talked about leadership and accountability, was interesting. This is someone who has stood in the shadow of six National Party leaders in the time that he has been in this House. He has never had the fortitude to step forward himself and take on some leadership.

Simon Power: Is this a maiden speech? What’s going on?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: There is Simon Power, who I thought would probably be a good leader—and I think a few of them amongst his caucus agree with me. The only questions he asks in this House are to the Minister of Corrections: “Do you have confidence in your department; if so, why?”. Well, it is obvious that he has not thought through the issues, because he has not entered very far into the debate other than to ask the Minister whether he has confidence in his department.

On 1 April 2007 there is good news for 360,000 New Zealand families. That is when the Government’s Working for Families policy will be fully implemented. More than a quarter of a million families in this country are getting more money every week. That has to be good news, but the National Party cannot stand it.

Hon Tau Henare: Speak from the heart!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I am speaking from the heart. The former Minister of Māori Affairs, who is an ex-member of the New Zealand First Party and, now, a loud noise in the National Party, never achieved anything during his time as Minister of Māori Affairs, nor did he try. The budget for Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, diminished by two-thirds under his watch. Now he says “Say it like you mean it.” Well, he did it like he meant it. He tried to extinguish Māori representation in the public service. I should know; I voted against it. And what happened? He was still the former something.

That is not the only good news from this Government, because, from 1 April, all employees will receive 4 weeks’ annual leave. That is confirmation that this Government values families and the time that employees need to spend with their families.

David Bennett: Tell those people outside you value their families!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: How many times has that member interjected from way back there?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Interjecting across the House like that makes things very difficult. There is a lot of noise. Could members please keep the interjections reasonable.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: That is quite all right, Madam Assistant Speaker. That is the best that that member can do: interject from the wilderness. Actually, his contribution to this House confirms that he sits in the wilderness.

I was talking about 4 weeks’ annual leave for all employees. That is only part of this Government’s contribution or commitment to the workers of this country. That will be launched after 1 April 2007. As well, the minimum wage will be increased. I will give the details of that for the benefit of members.

Hon Tau Henare: What about health, bro?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I will get to that, I say to Mr Henare. Actually, I will go straight to that.

Under the member’s watch how many private establishments in Māori communities were delivering health services to Māori? How many? I wonder if he could tell the House. The answer is absolutely none. He was not out of office more than 1 year before there were 300 establishments spread around the country. What does that tell us about that member’s representation of the Māori people during his time as Minister of Māori Affairs?

As I said, the Ministry of Maori Development’s budget diminished by two-thirds under his watch. That made it almost impossible for Māori health providers out there in the communities to build their capacity, because there was a lack of fortitude from the then Minister of Maori Affairs. Now those providers have proliferated around the country. I mean, his own whānaungas in the far north could not give him the details because he has not bothered to go and look himself. I am sure that Hone Harawira will tell him about the rise in Māori broadcasting in the far north, the rise in Māori health provider networks in the far north, and the rise in Māori participation on district health boards—Hone Harawira could tell him a lot of things that are happening in the health sector in the far north. Mr Henare can tell members none of these things. But that is what this Government, with its friends in coalition, has done for the Māori people around the country.

It is unbelievable that that speech actually came from Associate Minister of Health Mita Ririnui. It was some sort of incoherent mumble on a range of topics. I heard the word Māori a few times; I did not hear much about health. But that speech was typical of this Government and of where it is at the moment. Government members want to talk about anything but the issues of the day.

Hon Mita Ririnui: And what are the issues?

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will tell the member what the issues are—and the Government is getting on the wrong side of every single one of them. That is this Government’s big problem.

We had several hundred people outside the front of Parliament Buildings today, protesting against the arrogance of this Government, which is going to go against what 83 percent of New Zealanders want—83 percent of the electorate. This Government arrogantly thinks it can walk into people’s homes and tell them how to raise their families. The Government is on the wrong side of that issue. It is on the wrong side of the issue in respect of corrections, where the mismanagement has been just appalling. It is also on the wrong side of the issue with regard to 20 free hours’ early childhood education—it has made a big mistake with that one; it has gone down a blind hole, and it cannot now back itself out of it.

The Government is definitely on the wrong side of every argument regarding the health sector in New Zealand at the moment. On 1 July 1.5 million Aucklanders will face not having a community laboratory service—and that is the Government’s fault. The Minister of Health is accountable for that. He has told us that the district health boards are to blame, and he is in charge of those district health boards. What was really disappointing about Associate Minister of Health Mita Ririnui’s speech was that he had nothing to say about the problems in Auckland at the moment—nothing at all. The Government is silent on that issue. The Minister of Health and his bozo mate, Trevor Mallard—who interjects right the way through—gave a lot of criticism and a lot of flannel, but they had not one thing to say about how they will solve this debacle. It is an absolute disgrace. Tony Ryall was right when he said accountability is on the way back, and it will come back in with a National Government. This lot has no interest in taking accountability for anything. The Government’s defence on the lab issue is to constantly muddy the waters. It says the issue is everybody else’s fault: it is poor old, nice Dr Hutchison’s fault, it is Dr Blue’s fault, and it is everyone’s fault but that of the hopeless Minister of Health and the Prime Minister, who are actually losing control of the situation. They will put anything they can out there to muddy the waters, in order to take the public’s eyes of the ball.

But Government members know they are on to a loser with regard to this issue. They know it, because the fact is that the conflicts of interest in this case were clearly, clearly stated long ago. Paul Hutchison wrote to the Minister of Health, telling him there was a conflict. What did the Minister do? Absolutely nothing. Wayne Brown, the Auckland District Health Board chair, knew of the inside information that Tony Bierre had. What did he do? Absolutely nothing—it says that in the court judgment, which says the problem was not so much what Dr Bierre knew but what the district health boards did not do. Frankly, there was abject negligence. The worst part about it is that the Minister of Health never took any steps to find out whether the conflict of interest issue had been resolved—he did not do anything. He knew about it; he had been warned about it. He had been told about it by Dr Hutchison and by many people who had written to him, but he did absolutely nothing.

I agree with the New Zealand Herald editorial that people need to take responsibility for this matter. The people who need to take responsibility for it are the chairs of the district health boards—and they are the appointed flunkies of this Government. Who is in charge of those chairs? It is Pete Hodgson. He had nothing to say today about how he will fix this mess—absolutely nothing, at all. He said in Parliament that it is the district health boards’ responsibility to fix it, but he and the Prime Minister both refuse to express confidence in them. I ask members this, if the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister cannot express confidence in the district health board chairs now, how on earth do they think those chairs will be able to fix this mess? If they are not confident in those chairs now, the chairs should go.

The Minister of Health needs to get up and say that he will be able to deliver lab services to 1.5 million Aucklanders on 1 July, because he has promised that all along. If the Labour Government cannot deliver on that promise, it is really time for that Minister to resign. What does it take for a Labour Government Minister to resign? Well, I can tell members that Labour Ministers seem to think they are pretty bulletproof.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Throughout that speech by my colleague, Mr Shane Jones continually led a barrage of interjections. Although we do not mind interjections, we do mind the member coming from way back in the back row, where he usually sits, to the front bench in order to make those interjections. I think that it states in the Standing Orders that one should not move to a place of advantage in order to interject.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The Standing Orders say several things. One of the considerations is that the member had been sitting there for a while.

Hon TAU HENARE: I am sorry, but I did not actually hear what you said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member had been sitting in that seat for a while.

Hon TAU HENARE: So you are saying—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member should go and read his Speakers’ Rulings on this matter.

Hon TAU HENARE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a point of clarification, are you saying a member can move to a new seat, stay there for some time, and then it is OK to barrack from that seat?

The Speakers’ rulings are relatively consistent over a long period of time. It is a matter of whether the member shifts for the purpose of interjecting. Generally, the time that someone has spent in a seat is taken into account.

Hon TAU HENARE: So, we are allowed to do it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): As I said, the member needs to refer to several Speakers’ rulings on that—for example, Speakers’ ruling 58/3.

What a debacle we have witnessed over the past few weeks, as the Auckland laboratories’ testing shambles has unravelled, bit by bit and ever so thoroughly, once Justice Asher’s decision was finally made public. This is more than just an embarrassment for the Auckland district health boards; it is a total shambles—it is unprecedented. It demonstrates the absolute folly of having bureaucrats in charge of contract negotiations within the health system, a practice that neatly absolves the Minister from direct accountability for outcomes.

In the case of Labtests Auckland, the bureaucrats, distracted by the possibility of making big theoretical savings, set off in hot pursuit of those savings and basically took their eye off the ball. There was no real guarantee of savings once the dust had even settled, and one of the most alarming aspects of this particular situation is that such debacles will continue to occur, because health board officials are heavily influenced by funding restraints, and that skews their judgment away from patient welfare.

We have seen lots of examples of this—this is not just an Auckland issue. In fact, the very same thing is happening right in my home town of Cambridge, where we will soon be down to having one laboratory service for the town and the whole surrounding area, rather than the four laboratories we currently have. Even I know that with just one laboratory in Cambridge it will be hard-pressed to cope, and many of the elderly in the community will find it very, very hard to travel the extra distance necessary to obtain their tests—let alone to find parking when a lab is right in the centre of town. At present, those elderly people can actually walk when they desire to do so and can do so.

I think we need to remember that health services, and the testing that goes with health services, are essential services. The fiasco we are witnessing in Auckland cannot be allowed to reoccur; accountability has to be restored. The present system we have gives the Minister of Health a “get home free” card whenever questions of accountability rise. That is not right. It is the all care but no responsibility attitude, and it is not working. No one in the health system appears to be responsible or accountable for anything, and on the very rare occasion that heads do roll, they are usually very little heads from way down in the pecking order.

With reference to the Labtests Auckland issues, I can tell members that over the next few months there will have to be a real scramble to ensure that Aucklanders have adequate testing available, and this mess will have to be sorted out and unravelled. This is a situation that should never have arisen, and should definitely not be allowed to happen again. A conflict of interest was always a possibility; the lines were blurred. It was an accident just waiting to happen. What will we see next? The next most expensive area of conflict between district health boards and health professionals looks likely to be that between district health boards and pharmacists. Again, who will be the casualty but the patients. They will have to pay extra when they collect their prescriptions, and often it is the elderly who can ill afford the extra money, or even the stress involved with this.

Last year’s round of strikes impacted on all of those people who cannot afford to go privately for medical procedures, and any further strikes this year will affect the same people again. All of this makes a really compelling argument in support of the New Zealand First policy of restoring ministerial accountability for health outcomes. That has to happen. The Minister of Health has to be directly accountable for the performance of the health system and for all of those areas under his jurisdiction. Basically, the buck has to stop squarely at his door—and the sooner it does that, the better.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou te Whare. On Sunday, 1 April, there will be some significant policy implementations that will improve the lot of families around New Zealand.

First of all, we will have 4 weeks’ annual leave. It is coming in effective from 1 April, but during the course of the following year people will be entitled to 4 weeks’ annual leave. A number of people in New Zealand have 4 weeks’ annual leave, so we are trying to look after the most vulnerable workers and make sure that a minimum provision that exists in comparable countries can apply here, as well. The second thing that will happen is that there will be the eighth increase in the minimum wage in 8 years, and it is the biggest increase yet. There will also be a 5 percent increase in Government superannuation, and an extra $10 per week per child in tax credits to families. These are constructive policies that are supportive of young and old families.

In order to get this kind of constructive policy and phased implementation, one requires vision, commitment, and prudent resourcing. Such policies require careful phasing in, notice to all parties affected, and leadership that is principled, reliable, and clear, in order to achieve useful outcomes.

Let us compare that with what is on offer by the National Opposition. We have in John Key a political hobbyist, not a potential Prime Minister. While our Prime Minister was out of the country advancing New Zealand’s interests, John Key was sounding off in an area about which he patently knew nothing. We can look to the media for reports of people who were present there, and who said things about Mr Key’s outburst. For example, “Key’s outburst has raised eyebrows among Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff travelling with Clark, who thought National had decided to take a bipartisan approach to foreign affairs. His comments also angered expatriate business leaders in the US, with one saying yesterday he thought Key had made a ‘prat’ of himself with the remarks.”

Those are not my words, but I am not going to contradict them. Let me give another quotation from the Press, where it was noted: “She”—meaning the Prime Minister—“received support from global fast-food giant McDonald’s yesterday. The company’s vice president for government relations, Dick Crauford, said Clark’s visit had made a significant impact. ‘Domestic politics in the US are rather difficult … but I must say that the reception of the Prime Minister here by the administration as well as by the Democrats in Congress has been outstanding,’ he said.” These are the words of people who were present, and of people who were observing.

Last week Mr Key is reported to have said that he would be asking questions in this House of the Prime Minister, regarding what he referred to as “a failure to deliver” on a free-trade agreement. He was quite bullish about that; he promised that he would ask questions in the House, and that he would not be silenced on this matter. But where are the questions? There have been no such questions this week. They have not materialised. There has not been one. There has been none. The mouse that roared has now reverted to being just a mouse again. Clearly, in the National caucus the greater intellects of Murray McCully and Tim Groser have prevailed and pulled Mr Key back into line.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about John Hayes?

MARYAN STREET: I was referring to the greater intellects. Perhaps Mr Key decided to talk to his foreign affairs advisers, like Jenny Shipley, but perhaps he did so only after he had spoken and not before.

The questions in the House that were promised have not been forthcoming and the silence has been ringing. Even those who do not vote for Helen Clark recognise her ability in matters of foreign affairs. People know that she is in her element in foreign affairs. Mr Key needs to work much harder on issues of substance if he is to graduate from political hobbyist to potential leader.

Other people’s assessments of the Prime Minister’s performance include: “The Prime Minister was in top form—knowledgable, engaging, thorough, and unflappable. She impressed audiences wherever she spoke.”, and “Key’s most damning claim—that Clark’s trip to Washington was a foreign policy failure—is wide of the mark. In fact, it’s an embarrassing indictment of National’s own slippery grasp of foreign affairs.” National has no substance.

Gee, the rising note of panic in the Government benches is almost palpable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is this a member of Parliament?

JACQUI DEAN: I mean, for Trevor Mallard the rising note of panic as one goes around the press gallery is almost palpable. There is a reason why. Do members think it is because our excellent new leader, John Key, is now within 2 percent of the Prime Minister in the preferred Prime Minister stakes? Is that the reason Government members are panicking so much? Maybe it is the fact that hundreds of people turned up outside Parliament to express the view shared by 83 percent of all New Zealanders that they do not want this Government to tell them how to raise their children; they do not want this Government to come into their kitchens and tell them whether they can smack their children for the purpose of correction. Perhaps it is the fact that the so-called 20 hours’ free education scheme for preschoolers has been a disaster. Perhaps it is the fact that the whole corrections ministry is in a state of continual and increasing disaster—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I bet the member wrote this speech herself.

JACQUI DEAN: —or perhaps, I say to Mr Mallard, it is because the Ministry of Education and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) are an unfolding disaster, with more and more schools deserting NCEA to go over to the Cambridge exams.

Maybe it is not that. Maybe it is the fact that the Government’s climate change policies are a disaster. What did I hear my colleague Nick Smith, the spokesman for climate change, say? Did he just ask: “What climate change policies?” He would be absolutely right, because all we have is discussion papers, and they are a disaster.

But that is not the worst of it. That is not the reason why this Government is panicking. It is panicking because of the appalling state of health in New Zealand. Who is accountable for that? It is certainly not the Government, if one listened to Government members today. No, it is not the Government that is responsible or accountable for the appalling state of health services in New Zealand; it is actually Paul Hutchison—go figure that.

Let us start from Southland and work north. A group of 45 general practitioners working in Southland have just written to the Southland District Health Board expressing their lack of confidence in the ability of the board to do its job. Why would they do that if the Ministry of Health was doing such a good job? They did that because there are huge delays in Southlanders getting treatment. There is a high level of resignation amongst general practitioners. There is huge pressure for maternity services and elderly care services in Southland.

Let us move a little bit further north, to the Otago District Health Board. We thought things were bad enough in Southland, but in the Otago District Health Board we have a decrease in services for the people of Otago because a senior information technology manager has allegedly stolen $16 million from the district health board and nobody noticed. Where is the accountability in that? So the people of Otago and Southland will get less in the way of health care because of the lack of accountability within this Government, which lies directly at the feet of the Minister of Health.

Let us move to Auckland, where there is a half-billion-dollar contract to provide services to the people of Auckland. These services are critical to the people of Auckland; it is not a minor matter. If we go through the players in this issue, we have the ministry’s special adviser, who had free access to all information, who attended all the committee meetings of the Auckland District Health Board, and who was responsible to Gordon Davies, Deputy Director General, District Health Board Funding and Performance. So one would think that person would know what was going on. Then we have Dr Tony Bierre, the pathologist. He was privy to all the information and was actively involved in setting the terms of the contract for the district health board. While this was happening, Graham Aitken was right amongst the affairs of the district health board, but what did he see? He saw nothing. Where is the accountability from these Government-appointed people? The chairman of the Auckland District Health Board was right in the middle of this. The chair was a Government appointee with huge experience. What did he know about what was going on with this conflict of interest? He knew absolutely nothing. Where is the accountability? It is certainly not with this Government.

I have much to say, but, first, I want to say that I have been appalled at the two speeches I have heard just now from Dr Jonathan Coleman, a former general practitioner, and from Jacqui Dean.

R Doug Woolerton: The cigar smoker!

LYNNE PILLAY: That is right. That did come to mind. I was not going to raise it, but I thank the member very much.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Are you talking about Monica?

LYNNE PILLAY: No, no, but I will say that I find it really, really offensive for a former general practitioner to be denigrating this Government for supporting legislation that protects our children. I am proud that this party and this Government put children first. I am also proud of the general practitioners working out there who have been writing to us. We have received emails probably running at 100:1 in favour of this legislation. I acknowledge the hundreds of general practitioners, nurses, health workers, teachers, and people from agencies that care for children who have contacted us and said: “We support you in what you are doing. We support this bill.”

I cannot go past saying that members opposite are gross exaggerators. I saw the sad little crowd outside. There were not hundreds of people in front of Parliament. [Interruption] There were not. Once again, that is an indication, and I am waiting for the next flip-flop—given all the emails that have come through—from National members and for them suddenly to say: “Oops, this isn’t the populist way to go. Maybe we had better change our mind again.” That is what National members did in relation to market rents, the seabed and foreshore, the Employment Relations Act, climate change, civil unions, nuclear policy, and tax cuts.

We have not heard National’s visionary leader speak this afternoon. It would be nice if he could come and tell us a little bit about what he sees the National Party rolling out, or about some of its policies. He is very silent on that, but we do know about his flip-flops. To be critical and denigrating of the events happening on 1 April this year is just plain dumb.

I heard reference made to the 20 hours per week free early childhood education. My children are grown up now, but when they were young, kindergarten, which was really, really good, was all that was available. There was nothing for when I was working a full day. It was very, very hard for mothers—generally mothers—to manage quality early childhood education around those times. I congratulate Minister Maharey, because I know this was one of his absolute passions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Minister Maharey?

LYNNE PILLAY: And Minister Mallard. It is of course a given that he has been very passionate about this issue, too. It will provide much for families in New Zealand, along with paid parental leave, and let us not forget 4 weeks’ holiday now for every worker in New Zealand. That was vehemently opposed by the National Party. I do not hear any National members saying: “No, no. We supported that.” I commend workers in this country and the union movement who got behind the campaign for 4 weeks’ holiday and made sure it was on the agenda and that workers are going to be enjoying it in the future. They campaigned just as hard to keep 3 weeks’ holiday when the National Government tried to cut workers’ entitlement from 3 weeks to 2 weeks. I think workers in this country are only too aware of what is on the National Party’s agenda for them.

Also, I cannot go past talking about KiwiSaver, which is coming up. It will be the most exciting and innovative way to encourage people to save, with a lump-sum payment of $1,000 going into their account when they join KiwiSaver. It will also help people into their first homes. That is what this Government is about.

After about 2 years in this place one sort of loses a little bit of faith in what the political process means. One also loses a bit of faith in some of the people who are involved in this process. Outside the Parliament Buildings today stands a crowd of people who are real New Zealanders and who have come along to vent their anger at this institution. But we do not take any notice of it. We just sit in here and do what we think is right and what this House thinks should be the way for New Zealand. Perhaps we need to take a look around and see what is really happening in this world and hear what our people are really saying. It is not good enough to give the answers: “He is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.”, or: “I have full confidence in my department but there is always room for improvement.” How many times have we heard those two answers from members on that side of this House over the last year? I am sick of that. The public of New Zealand are sick of that. They want a Government that will govern. There are people out there who have real issues going on in their lives, and they need a Government that will stand up and deliver.

The smacking bill is a great example. It will not solve the problems these members are talking about. If the Government is genuine, it should go after the problem and solve it. Government members should not come in here and look for publicity. That is all they are doing; they are just using spin and publicity. All the Labour members’ speeches today have been about 1 April and what will be rolled out. We do not really care what the Government will do on 1 April; we want to know what it is doing today for people who need help.

Let us look at the Auckland district health boards, which are in a real mess. What have we got? We have a Government that is flip-flopping and saying: “It is not our fault. We had nothing to do with it. Let them work it out themselves.” Let us stand up and have some leadership from the Minister of Health. Let us stand up and have some leadership from the Prime Minister. Let her actually go in and say that there has been a stuff-up, that something has gone wrong, and that the Government is going to go in there and sort it out and do the right thing by the people of Auckland and the district health boards. But, no, the Government will not do that, because it is politically sensitive to do that and it has mates whom it is looking after. That is where one loses faith in this Government and in this institution. At the next election the people will perceive that loss of faith and will punish Labour and the other parties that have stood behind it. The Labour Government will go down.

It is pretty interesting to see what can happen to some people in their life. Last weekend I did the craziest thing I have done for a while. I went to San Francisco for the weekend, because the mother of a friend of mine had just had surgery and basically her prospects were being decided over the next couple of days. When one comes back from a situation like that one realises there are some serious things we should be doing in this House. We have a responsibility here to deliver for people. We need a hospital system that will work. My friend’s mother was at the best hospital in California. It had the best people doing the work there, and still it could not save her. We need to give everybody in this country that chance. We cannot afford to have testing, or anything like that, that does not deliver a first-class service for a first-class country. Our people deserve it. If anybody deserves it, New Zealanders deserve it. What makes it worse is that my friend’s mother was from the Labour Party. One can go beyond all the extremes and come back to the realities of this world.

We want to see a Government that will take some responsibility for the Auckland District Health Board, and whose members will go out there and stand up in front of those people today and say what they think. Even if the Government is against what people say, we want to see it out there governing this country as a Government should. Labour has a year left in office, and if it does not start governing, it will lose the next election. National will govern, will show respect for the people of New Zealand, and will deliver for them.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.