JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Up and down the country New Zealanders are telling me they want a fresh start. You see, they are absolutely sick to death of this dying and decaying Government, and they are sick of a Government that is sick of them. They are sick of a Government that is preoccupied with scandals—a Government that just bounces from one crisis to another. And they know one thing, and it comes through loud and clear: it is time for a change. That is what is going to happen.
Up until yesterday the hardest question to answer when it came to the Winston Peters donation scandal was this one: why did Helen Clark not act when in February 2008 Owen Glenn told her that he had donated $100,000 to Winston Peters? Why did she not act? The Prime Minister, at least publicly, wants to trade on the illusion that she holds her Ministers to account, that she has a standard for them, that they are held to some sort of ethics. Why did she not apply those to Winston Peters back in February? You see, the Prime Minister could not reconcile the version of events between Winston Peters and Owen Glenn. Yesterday, the answer jetted into town. Yesterday Owen Glenn said he told Helen Clark in February 2008 that he had donated to Winston Peters. Well, you know what? Helen Clark already knew that, because Mike Williams would have told her in one of the four phone calls he makes to her every single day.
You see, when Mike Williams was told in 2005 he actually OK’d the donation; Owen Glenn asked for the permission of the Labour Party. What are the odds that Mike Williams never told Helen Clark in 2 years? I do not think so. This is the interesting bit. When Helen Clark rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008, she did not ring him and say: “Winston did you take $100,000 from Owen Glenn?” She rang up and said: “Have you left a paper trail? They’ll get us caught.” And what he said to her was: “Don’t panic, everything is all right.” You see, Winston Peters misled Helen Clark all right, not about getting the $100,000 but about the hard evidence that he left behind. And if he gets sacked—and who knows whether he will—it will not be because he took $100,000 from Owen Glenn, because that was sanctioned by the Labour Party. He will not be getting sacked for any reason other than this: it is called stupidity. He allowed Helen Clark and himself to be exposed for what they were, up to their eyeballs in a scandal that will bring this Government down.
That is why New Zealanders are sick of the Government. What happened was that 6 months ago Helen Clark sat silent. She relied on the soothing assurances of Winston Peters that they would not get caught, and yesterday they did. Yesterday the truth jetted into town. You see, what worried Helen Clark yesterday was not what Owen Glenn would say about Winston Peters; it was what Owen Glenn would say about the Labour Party. That is the bit they do not like. What Owen Glenn said is what New Zealanders should know. He unveiled for New Zealand the real Helen Clark—the one who said that the means justify the end—“It doesn’t matter how much you keep them in the dark. It doesn’t matter how much you lower your standard. It doesn’t matter what you have to do to stay there: just stay there. That’s all you have to do.”
We have seen the real Helen Clark complicit with a scandal that is involving not just New Zealand First but the Labour Party. That is why they feel sick—because they know that is what it is and that is what it takes. Owen Glenn said something pretty interesting yesterday—well, he actually said a lot of things that were pretty interesting, I have to say. He said they are not his type of people. Well, I agree with him.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
When it comes to credibility in this area John Key has absolutely none. Ten days ago, John Key was asked a straightforward question by Duncan Garner on TV3. Michael Ashcroft, the British billionaire who had donated to the Conservative Party and to the Australian Liberal Party, was in the country. Duncan Garner asked John Key this question: “Has anyone in the National Party met Lord Ashcroft over the past week?”. John Key said: “Ah, yes, I think they have.” Duncan Garner opened the trap a bit wider. He asked the question again, and what did John Key say: “Ah, yes, I think they have.” “They have”—somebody else had! John Key was not telling the truth. John Key knew that he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had met him in his own house at his invitation. As the trap sprung, Duncan Garner commented when he knew John Key had nowhere to hide, and Mr Key came out and admitted it. Why did he not tell the truth in the first instance? Why did he not tell the truth? What did he have to hide?
Then there was the John Key of the Exclusive Brethren fame—the John Key who got the email that stated: “urgent, important, and strictly confidential.” That is how the email was headed. John Key got it, Don Brash got it, and both of them told the country that they did not open it. Can anybody believe John Key about that? The answer is no. So the member should not come in here and show off his double standards with the accusations he makes about other members. You know, John Key. You know that you opened that email. You met Ron Hickmott a couple of weeks beforehand. You knew that he was promising a million dollars but you did not tell the truth.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know Mr Goff is desperate to get himself looking angry on TV, but he is not allowed to address a member of Parliament as “you”. That is a reference to the Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
The member is quite right, but in this debate I have allowed another speaker to use that term. But Mr Goff is aware of that. Please continue.
So there are two examples. Mr Key did not tell the truth about the email that he got promising $1 million. Every campaign organiser for the National Party around the country knew that. Mr Key, who had met with the Exclusive Brethren and who got the email promising a million dollars, went out and told the country he knew nothing about it. Mr Key should come clean. Mr Key knows that that is not the truth. Mr Key knows that he did not tell the truth to TV3 when he tried to pretend that he had not met Michael Ashcroft. There is Mr Key talking about secret donations. The National Party, at the last election, got $2 million from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising you that money, and in giving you that money, and they want to know what the National Party and Mr Key promised in return.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Goff is even more desperate now to get himself on TV while yelling at the Leader of the Opposition. But the fact is you drew the matter to his attention. He now appears to be deliberately flouting the Standing Orders, and I suggest that he should not be allowed to do so.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
You are right, of course, but he is not deliberately flouting the Standing Orders. But I give notice that during this debate any speaker who uses the term “you”, or refers to me—I do not wish to be involved in the matters—will be pulled up by the Chair.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned that this member is continuing to speak when a point of order has been called. This is the third time I have risen to my feet on a point of order—both of the last ones have been valid—and this member is just continuing to shout. Everyone knows that when a point of order is taken in this House, the speaker is to be quiet and to sit down, because that is how points of order are dealt with. That is my first point. The second point is that he is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. He might use it in the Labour caucus, but not here.
Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I say, firstly, that the point of order had ended. Secondly, many times people have talked about other parties being hypocritical. I addressed it about the National Party. Mr English, and you, know that that is in order, and Mr English is embarking on a well-known tactic when he is under pressure, when he is under attack, and when he is feeling embarrassed—trying to interrupt another member’s speech that is just 5 minutes long.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
There are to be no comments or interjections during a point of order, but a point of order is not a point of order until the Chair acknowledges that person, and that was the case here.
So we have had that hypocrisy from the National Party. We have had Mr Key, who is up to his neck in hiding the fact that he knew about—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been many Speakers’ rulings regarding the “h” word. Speakers’ rulings have not been suspended today, and the member is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. That is the rule of this House. It is not discretionary; it is the rule of the House.
I withdraw. Then there are the National members who make comments when they think the public is not listening that are different from the comments they make in public. Mr English is guilty of that. He told us that Kiwibank was going to be privatised to the Australians, and he said that Working for Families would be cut. Mr English—“Mr 20 percent” at the last election—has egg all over his face because the mask slipped and he forgot what Crosby/Textor had told him.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As is typical with allegations from that member, none of those things is true.
Speaking to the point of order, I say that not only were they true, but the whole country saw Mr English get up and apologise for embarrassing John Key by saying them. I rest my case.
Those are the double standards of the National Party, with its secret agenda, its secret donors—the people who are financing it. The National Party does not tell New Zealand what those donors’ commercial motivation is or what the National Party is promising them in return. It is the National Party that says one thing in private and another thing in public. It does not let the public know what the secret agenda is. It is the National Party that will have Michael Ashcroft paying for Crosby/Textor, the spin doctors, to try to keep the National Party’s mask from slipping. But the mask keeps slipping. Maurice Williamson promised $50 road tolls for each week, and Bill English told the country that he will privatise Kiwibank—nobody believes their denials.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
That speech shows why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just make the point that that member broke up the previous speech seven times; he is going to get it back.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you just heard a threat. It was a threat to a member and a threat to the Speaker, and that is certainly out of order. I raised a series of points of order. No one here contested that they were valid points. Perhaps the last one could have been construed as a debating point, but the rest of them were dealing directly with breaches of the Standing Orders. It is absolutely outside the order of this House for Mr Mallard—who may want to take me out and punch me but who actually has to stick to the rules here—to threaten the Chair, and threaten a member, with disruptive behaviour.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
It would have been out of order, certainly, if the member had in any way threatened physical harm to another member. That was not the case. It was a threat, but in my view the threat was to use only what any member is entitled to use—that is, a point of order when the member thinks there has been a breach. Points of order have to be points of order. I know that the last point you raised was not a point of order, just as Trevor Mallard’s was not, either, so let us go on.
That is another, even better, reason why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive. Why do I say “the rot”? It is because the chain of events around the Owen Glenn donation now makes it pretty clear that an arrangement over party funding, at the heart of the coalition between New Zealand First and Labour, was deliberately kept secret from the public.
You see, Helen Clark, who is apparently the world’s most competent Prime Minister, has made an enormous mess out of what should have been a straightforward issue. The fact is that she does not know what to do, and I will tell members why she does not know what to do. She cannot sack Mr Peters for taking the donation, because the Labour Party jacked it up. She cannot sack him for keeping it secret, because she kept it secret. She cannot sack him for misleading the public, because she has misled the public. The fact is that the person who has set herself up as the judge is a participant in the crime. That is why no one believes that she can hold herself at arm’s length from this process, say that someone else will sort it out, and say that it is nothing to do with her.
Let us go back to how all of this came to public light. I can tell members that none of it came to public light because of honesty on the part of the Labour Party—none. In fact, it has come to public light only because of the honesty of Owen Glenn, a man whom the Prime Minister of New Zealand has systematically tried to defame for the last 3 months in order to try to undermine the credibility of what he disclosed yesterday. Yes, Labour kept saying that he was a drunk who was losing his mind, but he is not. Let us understand how this came to light. Labour gave Owen Glenn an Order of New Zealand; Labour gave him a Queen’s honour. That was fair enough; he is a philanthropic Kiwi who has done a lot for his country.
Hon Darren HughesNo, we did not rubbish it. Mike Williams, the president of the Labour Party, was asked: “Did Owen Glenn give Labour money in the last 12 months?”, and “Honest Mike” said no. What happened next? “Honest Owen” said yes. Is that not a funny pattern? Whoever says no is wrong, whether it is Mike Williams, Helen Clark, or Winston Peters; whoever says yes—who is always Owen Glenn—turns out to be right. Mike Williams denied the $100,000 loan, but then he had to say yes. That is how we found out. It was because Owen Glenn told us.
What was the next thing we found out? It was that the Prime Minister, under pressure, had to own up to the fact that she had always known. We saw a systematic and calculated set of mistruths in the media, and in the House, from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that were designed to hide a $100,000 donation and her knowledge of it. That is the raw truth at the core of the rot in the Beehive. The Prime Minister of New Zealand misled the House, and misled the media, for a $100,000 pecuniary gain to her coalition—full stop! She has never denied it. She has never denied she misled the public. She has used a calculated mistruth. I—and I think John Key—had asked her in the House whether Mike Williams was any part of this transaction. We knew he was because his name was in emails, and Owen Glenn said he had spoken to him and checked it out with him. But what did Helen Clark say? She said Mike Williams was on the public record as denying it. She knew he was part of it, she knew his name was in emails—we must get a fresh start.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I tell the people of New Zealand that they have just been listening to a member talk nothing but a load of rot. In fact, Bill English has become Parliament’s “Mr Boo-hoo Cry-baby”. He is on his feet every minute that he can to take a point of order, because he cannot take the heat in this Parliament. He has never been able to take the heat in this Parliament. He will be taking a point of order in a moment, because he does not like the truth.
The behaviour in this Parliament over the past few weeks reminds me of the title of that book Through theLooking Glass. The public have been looking through that glass, and they are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses they are getting from the National Party.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wondered what happened to the big, brave threat from Trevor Mallard to disrupt my speech with points of order. Perhaps he is not up to it in the way that he used to be.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
It is not in order to break up a member’s speech with a frivolous comment that is not a point of order. Thank you.
The member who has just tried to break up my speech will now disappear from this place, because he cannot take the heat. “Mr 20 Percent” led the National Party to its worst ever defeat in this Parliament—
—in 100 years. You know, the public of New Zealand are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses from the National Party. They are appalled at the attempts of people like John Key and Bill English to be the ringmasters who manipulate public opinion. They are sceptical of the claims of the National Party that although every other party in Parliament is on the take, National’s complicated webs of secret trusts, secret donations, and secret meetings are all lily-white.
Let me tell the House this. Everybody knows that Owen Glenn donated to the Labour Party. Everybody knows that, because he said so, we said so, and we declared it. But who donated to the National Party’s secret trust? Was it Fay Richwhite? Did it donate to National? Did people donate who were buying the policies that are now being leaked every day? Do we know what that money is for? We do not have a clue, because donations to National are so secret and so hidden that all one can say, when hearing from those members, is that it is nothing more than two-faced cant. We know that they received close to $2 million before the last election from their secret donors. Not one of those donations was disclosed to the public.
People out there see through the daily political farce from the National Party. They know the National Party needs the sideshows. It needs to have them featured on TV night after night, and on the talkbacks, because any scrutiny of its flimsy policy would have the public asking: “Change to what?”. That is what the public are saying. The public do not trust National. Members can just take the TV3 poll as an example. Fifty percent of New Zealanders do not trust the National Party not to have a secret agenda.
Ladies and gentlemen, National has a secret agenda; members should make no bones about that. Members heard from my colleague Phil Goff about John Key trying to cover up part of that secret agenda. John Key could not answer straight up and down as to whether he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had to um and ah about it. It took Duncan Garner three questions to get it out of him, but finally John Key admitted that he had met with Lord Ashcroft. Then he was asked: “Did you approach him, or did he approach you?”, and he replied: “Oh, I’m not sure of the answer to that. It was in my diary, so I just went. I saw him. I am not quite sure who set it up.” John Key also said exactly that about the Exclusive Brethren. He said the Exclusive Brethren had an appointment in his diary, he did not know who set it up, and he does not even remember whether he met with them.
John Key was then asked: “Do you recall whether Lord Ashcroft rang you, or you rang him?”. Well, of course, a question like that is a major question for the Privileges Committee at this very moment, but does John Key remember whether Lord Ashcroft rang him, or whether it was the other way round? He said: “Well, it could have been arranged by my …”—and he could not remember what the “my” was—and then he said he just followed what was in his diary. Well, can members believe that?
Today John Key accused the Prime Minister of knowing about Winston Peters’ donation. Well, let us just see what John Key said about donations to his own party when he was asked. He said: “I don’t know who donates to the National Party. Of course one knows who donates …”.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
I remind the House that that is the Minister who got on her high horse all last year demanding the need for openness and transparency around financial, big-business cheques, and who rammed through this Parliament the Electoral Finance Bill, at the very time the Prime Minister was complicit in hiding a $100,000 donation. You see, this Clark-Peters Government is so up to its eyeballs in muck that New Zealanders are yearning for a fresh, honest, and uncompromised Government that can get on and address the issues that matter to this country of ours. Let me canvass why Owen Glenn’s testimony has torpedoed any resemblance of honour or of trust in this Government. It is simply because MMP Governments stand or fall on agreements between coalition partners. The $100,000 payment from Mr Glenn, jacked up by Labour, was conditional on Mr Peters committing to prop up this Labour - New Zealand First Government for the full term. At its most basic, the Clark-Peters Government was stitched together by a tawdry backhander for $100,000. This is nothing less than our democracy being for sale.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not need to remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the experience you have had, that imputations of corrupt practice are totally out of order in the House, especially when they come from the only MP in the place to be convicted of lying.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that the first thing is that the latter point is grossly untrue—grossly untrue—and, of course, the words the member used at the end of his point of order are strictly out of order.
The first point I made was exactly a correct point of order, and the member himself, a very experienced front-bench member and a former Minister, knows precisely what he was doing. I will withdraw and apologise if he would like to tell the House what he was convicted of.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
We will end this matter there. It is true that no member may make reference to the corruption or otherwise of a party or a member in this House. But the member who raised the matter ended his point of order on a similar note, so let us proceed.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to the comment made by Mr Mark, which is disorderly and outside of the Standing Orders. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask him to withdraw and apologise.
I took offence at the imputation that my party stitched up a corrupt deal, so I say to Dr Smith that this is 30-all. I will withdraw and apologise for using the word “lying”, but if he would like to tell us what he got convicted of it would be easier.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
As the member knows, people make withdrawals and apologies in this House with no lead-in and certainly no follow-up. I will now ask Dr Nick Smith to withdraw and apologise, and I know he will do so.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I withdraw and apologise. What has been exposed is the rotten underbelly—
Yes, sir. So that I do not make the same mistake again, would Dr Smith do me the honour and the privilege of telling me exactly what he—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that the issue the member refers to was in respect of a Nelson mum and dad who lost their child. The House might be interested to know that Ron Mark personally approached me and said he thought I had done exactly the right thing in standing up for that Māori family.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I think all sides will be satisfied now. Dr Smith, your time is as it was.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
This whole episode has exposed awful double standards. Members should remember that Labour and New Zealand First spent all last year ramming through this Parliament a tawdry law that was designed to screw the electoral laws as much as possible in favour of this Clark-Peters Government. We heard speech after speech from New Zealand First and Labour members demanding open transparency with respect to big-business donations. The duplicity was highlighted when Labour specifically amended that law to allow for overseas donations if it just happened that the overseas donation was from an ex-resident. That description just happened to fit Mr Owen Glenn. Labour’s principles are that big money from overseas billionaires is fine as long as it is going to Labour. That is as far as their principles go. We have seen a trail of dishonesty from Labour and New Zealand First over this whole affair. The first porky was when Labour Party president—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I withdraw. The Labour Party president denied receiving any post-election donation from Mr Glenn, but subsequently had to admit that he had received $100,000. Labour then became complicit in February with Winston Peters’ denial that he had received $100,000. Not only did Prime Minister Helen Clark know that that was untrue; senior Minister Trevor Mallard was at the meeting where it was disclosed that $100,000 was paid. The question I have for the Government is: if Helen Clark has stood silently by at the sidelines, knowing that Winston Peters’ statement was untrue, how many other Ministers have been telling untruths to the public of New Zealand while she has sat silently by? All the transcripts show that both the Prime Minister and Mike Williams knew but denied knowing anything. It is no wonder Mr Glenn has today slammed the Prime Minister as self-serving, and the Labour Party president as dishonest. Here we have at the highest levels of Government dishonesty, and a complete breakdown in trust. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say today that she found Mr Glenn’s evidence disturbing and that she may now cut Mr Peters loose after the passage of the emissions trading legislation, but the reality is that she knew everything back in February and misled the public.
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
We are a nation distracted. We are distracted from the vital issues of our times by the New Zealand First funding saga. I acknowledge to members that it is a distracting show and an important issue. I look forward to the support of National and Labour to reform campaign finance laws so that we can try to avoid these kinds of things happening in future.
But we need to remember what really matters. One of the things that really matters in this country is the calamitous pollution of our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. Environment Waikato has just released a report showing that three-quarters of rivers in the Waikato region are unsafe to swim in, and about three-quarters are unsafe for stock to drink from. These rivers have increased nutrient, faecal, and sediment loads, and nitrogen and phosphorous are increasing at a rate of about 2 percent a year.
Water pollution from intensive industrial dairy conversions is threatening the water supplies of Christchurch and Auckland. It is threatening the native species that live in and around our rivers and lakes. Our kids can no longer safely swim in our rivers, and even whitebaiting is becoming an endangered activity. The economic futures of tourism and the primary sector are actually endangered. Whitebait is a treasured and iconic cultural food resource, but this New Zealand institution is being eliminated in front of our very eyes by industrial dairy conversions. Only the Greens are speaking out about it and calling for action. Our rivers and streams are now so polluted and degraded that two of the species that make up the whitebait catch are actually endangered.
We would never let Parliament outlaw whitebaiting, but the parties in this House are perfectly happy to let the giant industrial dairy polluter CraFarm pour so much cow faeces and urine and fertiliser into our rivers that it kills the species that make up the whitebait catch. CraFarm are known colloquially as “CrapFarm”. We would never let a regional council stop people whitebaiting, but when the industrial dairy polluter CraFarm ends up in front of the Environment Court four times in a row for polluting rivers and groundwater with cow faeces and urine we just let them carry on doing it. When “CrapFarm” got pinged in the Environment Court with a $37,500 fine for polluting a pristine river in the Hawke’s Bay, it did not care. It did not care because it had a $5 million turnover on that property—it was a minor expense.
How stupid are we that we let “CrapFarm” sell its milk to Fonterra, which happily buys the milk—making a fortune for both—and then tells us how clean and green it is? Well, aside from being sick and tired of hearing about the New Zealand First funding saga, I am also sick and tired of hearing Fonterra make promises about being clean and green while continuing to collect milk from “CrapFarm”.
What is the Government doing about it? It has released the draft national policy statement on freshwater management. Let us see what is in it. The unenforceable preamble to the draft national policy statement states that one of the goals is to “meet the recreational aspirations of New Zealanders, including that Freshwater Resources are swimmable.” Well, I can go along with that; I agree with that. The objective section of the national policy statement waters this down a little—if members will excuse the pun—to “actions to ensure appropriate Freshwater Resources can reach or exceed a swimmable standard.” So if it is not an appropriate freshwater resource, if that river is not deemed appropriate, then “CrapFarm” is free to defecate in it and members’ kids will not be able to swim in it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not really want to interrupt the member; he is talking about one of the worst polluters in the country and a company that is very challenging to regulators around the country. However, I think he should refer to it by its proper name rather than the name he is calling it at the moment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I thought that was the proper name. If it is not, the use of that word in this Chamber is unacceptable.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Is that a word that you are just using to describe this farm, Dr Norman, or is it the correct name of the farm?
The name of the farm is CraFarm; it is known colloquially as “CrapFarm” because it constantly pollutes rivers and streams.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
No. You may use another description but not that—not in this Chamber.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As long as a river is not deemed to be an “appropriate” freshwater resource then CraFarm is free to defecate in it and members’ kids cannot swim in it.
The policy part of the draft national policy statement, which is the guts of it, says that regional councils when making regional policy statements or plans must consider eight factors related to water, the eighth and last of which is: “The value of swimmability to the community.” This has to be weighed up against the seven other factors including the economic value of existing investments in irrigation—we all know what that means.
While the majority of our lowland rivers are so polluted that it is dangerous for our kids to swim in them, our whitebait is disappearing because of pollution and habitat destruction, and we are in the middle of a massive conversion to intensive dairy across the country, the Government’s response is to produce a toothless national policy statement that will probably take a decade to come into force anyway. So is it any wonder that the newspaper Rural News wrote recently “Fonterra must be sitting smugly on the back of its lobbying against the Government’s … hard line for the dairy sector”? It was a victory for what Rural News called “a powerful consortium of agriculture interests”. This powerful consortium is the new face of farming. Family farms that have looked after the land and rivers for generations are being replaced by huge dairy corporations.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
There is no particular news that the National Party has been leaking right, left, and centre. In fact, the Opposition resembles a colander. What happens is that, if one looks a little more carefully, one sees the leaks come in two types. There are the unplanned leaks and the planned leaks. The unplanned leaks are the ones that are the result of the Opposition having something of a secret agenda, and those leaks began about a year ago. The planned leaks have a very different origin altogether. They are due to the splits and divisions that are within the National Party, and I want to briefly explore both of them.
The unplanned leaks began when Tony Ryall said, about a year ago, that National would ensure that the fees control system for general practitioners would be knocked on the head. That was repeated today, if we look at the fine print of the leaked health policy that Jim Anderton offered the House. The unplanned leaks continue. The leaking of the accident compensation policy originated in Australia, when one of the people who thought he or she would make a lot of money out of it started talking about it. The leak of about $50 a week for road tolls had its origin when Maurice Williamson got himself too excited on Agenda. The leak about Kiwibank being sold eventually had its origins in the secret tape-recording. The leak about employer contributions to KiwiSaver being ditched had its origins in a couple of backbenchers telling the truth for a change—and on it goes.
These are unplanned leaks that occur because a party sets out to try to ensure it has a secret agenda underneath the given agenda. That is why, as Annette King said, New Zealanders now believe, to the tune of about 50 percent versus 30 percent, that National has a secret agenda. In fact, a quarter of National’s own supporters believe the party is not telling the truth. That figure is from a Television One poll.
But it is the unplanned leaks that I think are the most interesting. I am referring, of course, to the National Party policy documents that have ended up in our hands. Someone, or some group, has planned for that to happen. Policy documents in their final form are not circulated widely before release, especially in the National Party, and the party’s leader, John Key, has said as much, but still the leaks have occurred. National says the documents arrived on our side of the complex all at once. They did not. Trevor Mallard said that if Mr Key knows which policies were in the bundle, then Mr Key would be able to list them. Mr Key has declined to list them, and he has declined because he does not know. He does not know because there is not one big batch.
So I ask members why there is a serial leak. Well, I do not know why, and I certainly do not know who from, but it seems to me that one or more people at the centre of the National Party do not want to win this time. Presumably, they do not want to win this time, and, presumably, that means they do want to win next time, and, presumably, that means there needs to be a change of leadership in the meantime. That may or may not be the motive of that person or those persons. I said that I do not know.
I do not know why Nicky Hager is able to say, long after the release of his book The Hollow Men, that he is still receiving emails from within the National Party. I do not know why those leaks or the leaks of policy continue. I do not know why, but I cannot come to a more logical conclusion than the one that I have given. One or more people at the centre of the National Party would prefer to win next time, not this time, and the only reason for that would be to change the leader in the interim. I ask members why that might be.
I ask why there might be such a strong feeling amongst one or more people at the centre of the National Party. Well, again, I do not know, but I ask members to remember that Bill English lost the leadership by one vote. I ask members whether they remember that, and that Bill English was surprised by his loss, and that Bill English’s colleagues went out and celebrated his victory the night before he was defeated. I ask members whether they remember that, therefore, someone in the National Party swapped his or her support overnight, and whether members remember the rumours as to who that person was—John Key. That may be what the leaks are all about. Maybe the National Party is more deeply riven and divided and ill at ease with itself than is first apparent.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
That truly depressing contribution came from the man who has been completely obsessed with leaks ever since he was the chief strategist for the Welsh Labour Party, and we all remember what happened to that party. I would really love to hear from him as to how there is a secret agenda if everyone knows the agenda, because we have released 27 policies and the Labour Party has released none—none, not one, zero. That is how many Labour has released.
The debates we are talking about this week are all about the heart of our democracy, because the scandal we have seen unfolding before our eyes has all gone to the heart of our constitution and the heart of our democracy. It is no secret to people, and it should be no secret, that I used to respect Helen Clark once, but now I know a lot more about her.
Christopher FinlaysonIt was an error of judgment, but a lot of other New Zealanders used to respect her, too. They did not necessarily like her; they did not necessarily like what she stood for; but they did, generally, respect her. They used to say that they did not like what she had in terms of policy, but that they respected her. Well, I do not respect her now, actually, because I know now that she does not put her country first. I know that she does not even put her party first, because if she did she would not put her party through this appalling situation. But I do know that she puts herself first. Helen Clark’s legacy for this country will not be about getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, because New Zealand’s ranking has now got worse, not better, despite the best commodity prices for generations. Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about improving the health of New Zealanders, because we know that despite a doubling of the health budget over 9 years, ordinary New Zealanders still cannot get treatment. Almost daily we hear about elderly people being left on trolleys in corridors in emergency departments while the Government says “Everything is going great, thanks very much.”
We know that Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about better educational standards for our children, because now we see that one in five New Zealand children leaves school with no qualifications. Many of those children do not even have proper literacy and numeracy skills. We certainly know it will not be about improved law and order, because we know that under her Government gangs that used to be just groups of thugs with tattoos on their faces—tattoos that are spelt backwards—are now suited-up, smart, fully organised criminals. Under her watch on law and order gangs are now fully organised international criminals—thanks very much to Helen Clark and her legacy.
What is her legacy apart from that? What we have is a flagrant disrespect and disregard for our constitution. The highest court in our land has been done away with by a majority vote in this Parliament. We have seen a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money. We have had a flagrant disregard for the rules of common decency—[Interruption]—which is something the member opposite, Trevor Mallard, would have some trouble with, too. And we have seen a flagrant disregard for the truth. We now know that the Prime Minister sat by in February, when Winston Peters said: “No.”, and that he did not know anything about this money. We now know that Helen Clark and the Labour Party knew all about Owen Glenn providing $100,000 to Winston Peters’ legal fees, because it was her president who put Mr Glenn together with Winston Peters—we know that. We also know that Mr Glenn told Helen Clark all about it in February, and we know from Mr Glenn today that Helen Clark already knew about it when he told her.
We now know that this Prime Minister has been more concerned about her position, about her power, and about her next position than about the standards of her Ministers. This Prime Minister has made a career out of cutting free people who became inconvenient. Do members remember her Crown driver and the great dash across the Timaru plains? Who was prosecuted? It was her Crown driver. What about the police officers who were helping her? Did she stand by them? No, she did not.
Oh, that is right, Government members had a whip-round to pay a few bucks towards their costs. That was appalling. This Prime Minister cut people like Dover Samuels free, apparently because of swirling allegations. Whatever did happen to Dover Samuels under this Government and this Prime Minister?
This Prime Minister has cut people free when they have become inconvenient. Now there is one other thing that she is going to cut free, and that is this country. She cut free this country when it became inconvenient for her, because she wants power, and that is what it is all about. Our constitution has, in fact, been laid bare. Our constitution, and the fact that it relies on conventions and that it relies on common decency, has been left free. This Government cares more about power than it does about us.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
I think the only question about that speech by Judith Collins is how much Lord Ashcroft paid Crosby/Textor to draft it. That is the only question about that speech. I think it was pathetically delivered.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has made an allegation of corruption about me by saying that Lord Ashcroft paid money for that speech. I take exception to that, and I seek your assistance to have the member withdraw and apologise.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
That barely turns what you have raised into a point of order. You are drawing a long bow to say that, in my view. I know a lot of members are offended, but I think it needs to be a little more direct than what Mr Mallard said. If you are really offended, and you say you are, I am sure Mr Mallard will withdraw.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I withdraw.
If I were Crosby/Textor I would ban that woman from using my lines. If I were Crosby/Textor I would not let her deliver my lines. Lord Ashcroft will be asking for a refund if that woman continues to deliver the lines that he is paying for. It is an outrage for Crosby/Textor, which is generally known as being a very, very competent right-wing spin-meister. It would hate to know that that woman is allowed to deliver the lines that Lord Ashcroft is paying a fortune for.
We can see, by listening to that member, why more than half of New Zealanders now know that the National Party has a secret agenda. It has a secret agenda, and New Zealanders all over the country are waking up to the fact. I say: “Thank you very much.”, to the National Party source who keeps on sending stuff to me in my office. I think it is absolutely wonderful that the National Party is leaking and that stuff is coming to my office. I want to say one thing. Information is not coming only to my office. I never got the health policy; it apparently went to Mr Cunliffe’s office, and then Mr Anderton’s office. So we now have, at least, a multiple methodology in respect of the leaking on the part of the National Party. I have never seen the health policy from the National Party. I have still not seen it, but I will be interested in seeing it later on, and, hopefully, I can get it from Mr Anderton.
If the National Party is so proud of its policies, why does it not put them out? National members want to do what Roger Douglas did in 1987, and that was to announce policies after the election. That is what Roger Douglas did in 1987. I want to make it clear that we will not let the National Party do that. If National members are too scared—if they do not have the backbone—to release their own policies, then we are absolutely prepared to do it for them. If National’s leader is not proud to stand up in front of an audience and deliver his policy, then the Labour Party is prepared to get it out there and make sure that the contrasts are available.
I am not sure who is responsible for this leak. I think Pete Hodgson got it right. It is someone who thinks that he or she would be a better leader than John Key and does not want to wait another 3 years. I think Simon Power is probably the next leader, but I am not sure he has got the nasty bones in him to actually do this, and that takes me back to thinking it is more likely that it is coming from Bill English. But in a funny way it might be Bill English, in the end, working for Simon Power. Not even the National Party believes Bill English any more. He is the person who wanders around saying that John Key does not understand the Working for Families package. He is the person who wanders around saying he wants to prepare Kiwibank for sale. He wanders around indicating that he knows John Key is not competent. So I say to Bill English, if he is the source of the things that are coming to me: “Thank you very much, but I don’t think it will work for you because your colleagues know you a little better than that.”
Nathan GuyHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I agree with the member who is running for Ōtaki, who says that Bill English is hopeless. I agree that Bill English is hopeless, and, therefore, he will not be promoted. The member, who, I think, is a whip for the party, is showing no loyalty to Bill English at all. I agree with him that Bill English is hopeless.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
I seek leave to table a document. That document is all of Labour’s policy in respect of the 2008 election, and it amounts to absolutely zero in terms of what it has announced today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) Link to this
On the eve of this year’s general election it is time to take stock of the social statistics of this country, as many of them have deteriorated during the 9 long years of this Labour-led Government. I want to give a list: violent crime, domestic violence, child abuse, youth crime is up by an amazing 47 percent, fatherlessness, single-parent families, teenage pregnancies, the number of abortions, the rate of home ownership—whoever believed it would get to this sorry state—truancy, misbehaviour in schools, and promiscuity. The time has come for change, because if we do not change nothing will change, and we will see those dreadful statistics continuing on their downward path. If we do not begin to change and address them now, we will leave a terrible legacy for our children and our grandchildren.
The Kiwi Party, which I am proud to represent, will have some positive policies to bring before this year’s election. First of all, we will stop the criminalisation of good parents by repealing the anti-smacking law, and appoint a royal commission to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence, and child abuse. Secondly, we will invest in marriage preparation, marriage enrichment, and parenting courses through faith-based, charitable, iwi, and other third sector organisations. Thirdly, we will raise the drinking age back to 20 years, and establish detoxification and rehabilitation centres for those struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. Fourthly, we will put victims’ rights, including full restoration for property crimes, before criminals’ rights, with no bail, parole, or home detention for violent criminals. Fifthly, we will change the law and practice so that the number of abortions is greatly reduced, and require parental consent prior to under-age abortions. Sixthly, we will introduce income splitting for couples with dependent children, and we will reduce the burden of rates by removing GST. Seventhly, we will reinforce our democracy through regular binding referendums on controversial issues.
The Kiwi Party will establish a nationwide goal of home purchase affordability, for the medium price of a house, at four times the average annual wage. Currently it is about 6.6 times the average annual wage, which is totally and completely unacceptable. We will recognise parents as being primarily responsible for the education of their children, and ensure that funding follows the student. We will reduce hospital waiting lists through patient-focused funding involving both public and private hospitals. It is pretty simple. We will let the money go with the patient. It will be patient led, from top to bottom. We will protect every family’s recreational hunting and fishing rights, and we will ban the aerial application of 1080 poison. We will address injustices occurring in our Immigration Service and adopt more family-friendly immigration policies. I could go on and on. We will address the social consequences resulting from the Prostitution Reform Act. All of these are commitments and pledges that we will carry through.
When I talk to people across this country who have different ethnic backgrounds and different nationalities, and who speak different languages, they tell me that, although they love this beautiful country, they are saddened they have to bring up their children in a country that now has the second-worst social statistics in the OECD. In all those categories I have mentioned, this country is near the top of the list. We are either in position two or position three, and that is simply not good enough. We have drifted along. We have allowed the moral fibre of our country to be stretched to breaking point. We have systematically removed the moral signposts that used to guide our generation and previous generations in the way they should live their lives. We have allowed lawlessness and anarchy to reign in far too many areas of our society.
New Zealand has been the least corrupt nation in the world, which is something we should be proud of, but, sadly, this week we have begun to see corruption arise in so many different areas of our national life. When I sent my letter to the Speaker raising the question of the Owen Glenn donation to Winston Peters, I was not out to get Winston Peters; I was out to get to the truth. I say to this House that if we go away from that measurement of truth, then we as a nation are in big trouble. We need to get back to those good, sound values that have served our country for so long. Thank you.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
There we have it! There has been a big storm going on in this House, but things have quietened down a bit. Today I saw a desperate National Party trying to divert attention from all the problems in its own ranks. It is not really surprising that leaks are happening, especially when we think of all those unhappy National MPs who have been sidelined by John Key. They have been left out and they have not been consulted about policy. They have come out and told the truth, and then they have just been sidelined, embarrassed, and humiliated in public.
Chris TremainI will name them—Bill English over Kiwibank, Kate Wilkinson over KiwiSaver, poor old Maurice Williamson over the $50-a-week toll, and Tony Ryall over an increase in doctors’ fees. Soon there will not be anyone in the National Party who has not been ridiculed in public by John Key, as he continues to dumb down National.
How many National policies have been leaked in the last week? Is it two?
Hon Lianne DalzielFive! That must be why National rushed out its housing and building policies yesterday, to prevent another leak—
OK!
Then there was the Lord Ashcroft cover-up. I am very interested in that, because that was leaked by a National Party insider. Lord Ashcroft is a massive contributor to the Conservative Party in the UK, and he has used his political connections to ruthlessly advance his own interests. Mr Ashcroft has a 50 percent share of the Belize shipping register, known as a flag of convenience. What is a flag of convenience? That is where countries can attract foreign shipping because of their poor labour and safety standards. So if Lord Ashcroft is giving money to the National Party, I wonder what the price is going to be. I notice that he also owns a large part of the Belize Bank—is that where Kiwibank would go? Is that who National might sell it to?
Hon Steve ChadwickYes, to Belize. No one believes that silly story—that National’s policy papers were accidentally lost by an MP, but that does tell a story about the shambolic state of the National Party and its caucus.
Today it is the biggie—it is National’s health policy. What a scary document that is! It is a bit of a re-spinning of Tony Ryall’s admission that National would remove the cap on doctors’ fees. Instead we see that cheaper doctors’ fees and prescription charges will be “kept in the short term”. Well, that is really worrying. I feel worried for families. I say to the previous speaker, Gordon Copeland, that he should be worried for the families that he says he is concerned about. Families depend on lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges, and they will not be able to depend on them, by the sound of it, if National becomes the Government.
The other thing I will talk about in the health policy is something that Tony Ryall has gone on and on about, and that is reducing bureaucracy in the health system—using the usual offensive National Party term for hard-working New Zealanders. Today at lunchtime I met with some of the representatives of the 7,000 clerical and administrative workers in the public hospital system. Those 7,000 people keep our hospital system ticking over. They answer the phones, they meet the patients on arrival, they manage the booking systems, they keep the records, and they provide a valuable public service. If it were not for those clerical workers, health professionals would not be able to do their jobs. Those front-line staff—nurses and doctors—would not be able to do their jobs, because they would be diverted into administrative tasks instead of caring for people, and therefore efficiency in our public hospitals would dramatically decline. I doubt that Tony Ryall thinks about these things, because in National’s view these good women and men are faceless non-people, whom that party continues to demonise.
I am really, really offended by National’s attack on these so-called bureaucrats, when we are talking about real people who carry out very real jobs.
We have said in this House today that John Key has a big problem. The public do not trust him. They think—in fact, they know—he has a secret agenda, and they can also see that he has no conviction. They know he will just say whatever it takes. Even in his own electorate of Helensville, which I have a small interest in at the moment, he is not fronting up. Genesis wants to build a monstrous great thermal power station in their backyard, and the residents are very concerned about it, but John Key was too busy to meet with his constituents. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
When I came into Parliament in 1996 one of the issues that I was determined to fight for was the New Zealand Defence Force. It was natural for me to want to do that, because I had 20 years’ experience in the military—15 years with the New Zealand Army and then, as a result of being recruited by British officers, 5 years serving in the Sultan of Oman’s Armed Forces in the Middle East.
When I came into Parliament, I took part in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. I undertook to fight for extra pay and extra resources for defence, and I can say proudly that I forced the then National Government, by embarrassing it, to increase immediately the allowances paid to our Defence Force personnel who were deployed to East Timor. I pointed out that the allowance those troops were getting per day was less than the allowance MPs were getting per day for coming to Wellington.
In 1998 I asked the National Prime Minister about pay rates. Jenny Shipley’s reply was that Defence Force personnel are given free dental care. I was able to focus National members’ minds when I tabled a payslip from a junior soldier in Waiōuru, which revealed he was getting only $13,000 per annum. In 1999 we had a change of Government, and over a period of about 5 years there was a change in the direction the Defence Force was taking and we saw about four small increases in pay.
New Zealand First does not agree with everything that the Labour Government has done with defence forces. We were always opposed to the purchase of 105 light armoured vehicles. We were always and still are—unlike the National Party—opposed to the disestablishment of the air combat wing, and we want to see it reinstated. National has flip-flopped on that issue and turned its back on the air force personnel whom it promised would get back their air combat capability. We saw a number of things change for the good, but recently, with the release of the Ministry of Defence annual report, some issues of concern have been raised. They were headlined by the media as “Can’t sail, can’t fly, can’t fight,”. It was quite humorous to listen, on the radio programme Morning Report, to the Minister of Defence, Phil Goff, fighting National’s “Mr Mainwaring”, its spokesperson on defence, Wayne Mapp—he is widely known throughout the country now as National’s “Mr Mainwaring”—because it was a bit of a one-sided battle.
Some things that have happened in defence are not wrong—they are good. The long-term development plan is a good plan. The Defence Sustainability Initiative gives surety and security to defence funding. But the issues that fundamentally underlie the problems the Defence Force faces today are around one simple area: attrition and retention—the loss of highly experienced personnel. New Zealand First has consistently said for a long time now that the only way we can solve these problems is firstly—obviously—to recruit but also, more important, to retain the high-calibre, highly qualified, highly experienced middle-management personnel that we are bleeding. But still we do not see a serious addressing of that issue.
On 28 August I had a briefing from the Defence Force in regard to the new military remuneration system. New Zealand First says it is a good system. The problem is that it has taken us 12 years to get to this point, that this remuneration system will not be fully implemented for another 5 years, and that unless we see a massive injection into the Defence Sustainability Initiative that allows the Defence Force to boot up pay and salaries—in the same way that teachers have had a kick-start and nurses and the police have had an increase—we will not stem the bleeding. It is no good for the Minister of Defence to tell everyone that our recruiting targets are up and we have an extra 1,000 people in the Defence Force; we cannot say we have seriously addressed the attrition problems by recruiting 1,000 new people who do not necessarily have experience and who in the main are raw recruits.
The Defence Force is doing some good things. It has recruited from the UK some good, highly experienced people. But the only way that we will stop headlines such as “Can’t sail, can’t fly, can’t fight,” is to put extra funding into the Defence Force pay system, in order to give our Defence Force personnel a substantive increase to stem the outflow now.
I am proud to be standing as the candidate for Rimutaka, and I pledge to those Defence Force people at Trentham that New Zealand First stands with them, that we will always stand with them, and that we will fight for a substantive pay increase for them. We pledge that.