Mr SPEAKERI have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation will lead to an urgent debate being accepted. However, having carefully considered this application I have decided to err on the side of allowing the debate. The application is therefore accepted. I call on the Hon Darren Hughes to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. We have seen some extraordinary events in Parliament in just the last 24 hours, as the Key Government starts to fall apart at the wheels. What has happened with the ACT Party is that a party with just five MPs, which is taking the Government further and further to the right, could not agree even on keeping its confidence and supply agreement with the Government intact. What did we get from the Prime Minister about that? Not a word—not a word. A Minister of the Crown has left office in our country and no one is allowed to know why. No one is allowed to have an explanation of what it is about. No one is being told how a confidence and supply agreement that led to a Government of New Zealand being formed is all of a sudden bereft and not being taken seriously, at all.
Several key points of constitutionality, I think, come into play. One of them should be of most concern to the Māori Party and to United Future, because it seems that the Prime Minister can arbitrarily rewrite confidence and supply agreements after they have been signed at the time of a general election. I would have thought that it was a very serious thing indeed if a small party signed up to support a Government but did not know whether it would get the opportunity for the words in that document to be taken seriously as the coalition continued.
I refer to the confidence and supply agreement that National signed with ACT, which, most curiously, sets out something that I guess the Prime Minister would describe as being slightly aspirational. It states “The relationship between ACT and National will be based on good faith and no surprises.” Well, I would have thought that it was a day of surprises yesterday in the office of Heather Roy as she turned up for work, to be told that she was about to be knifed by her parliamentary colleagues, that the ousting was going to be done in secret, and that what was driving it and the reasons behind it were not to be communicated to the public.
But today in the newspaper we were able to find out one of the reasons, and it is a very serious point. Rodney Hide has sat in this Parliament for 14 years, and he has sat in judgment over every other party and every other politician. He has sat here being holier than thou, he has sat here as the “Perkbuster”, and as the person who was going to be “Mr Transparency”, “Mr Accountability”, and “Mr Openness”. He has been a cut above most other parliamentarians and most other parties. But we have found out that in 18 short months, after Rodney Hide’s long career as an Opposition member sitting outside the glasshouse and throwing rocks, now that he is inside the engine room of the Government, nearly every single decision he has taken has shown he is not up to the job of being a Minister, let alone a party leader. He was the person who went around the country complaining that ministerial standards had slipped under previous Governments because not enough action was taken by Prime Ministers of the time. Yet he is the same person who went to a press conference yesterday and would not tell the public of New Zealand why he had taken measures to politically execute his deputy, and what effect that would have on the executive Government of this country, as a Minister was driven from office because of a tawdry backroom deal done by the ACT Party.
What is really clear here is the question of accountability for Mr Hide, because it seems that Mrs Roy, in her role as the Associate Minister of Defence, had significant concerns about the security of the paperwork and documentation in her office. The New Zealand Herald makes it very clear today that the Associate Minister was concerned that documents related to the defence portfolio were being taken without her permission from her desk in her ministerial office here in Parliament. It is very serious, indeed, for that to happen. Those documents are given to Ministers on the basis of confidentiality, they are often classified documents, and the former Minister Mrs Roy was quite rightly concerned at the extent to which the confidentiality of her papers was being abused by Rodney Hide. So what did she do about it? She went to Rodney Hide, asked him about it, and he bullied her. He tried to bully her—
Hon Damien O’Connor Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like to interrupt my colleague. I know that we are not allowed to point to the absence of a member in the House but I wonder whether pointing to the absence of a party is—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
I am sure the research notes are being done right at the moment, because the ACT Party will have to front up at some point as the party that put every other party to a higher test—its members saying that they would do better in Government than everyone else. They have sat there in this Parliament for 12 years, in opposition to National and Labour Governments, and have said they would bring a higher standard of ministerial accountability. But what we have seen of the behaviour of members of the ACT Party is deserving of Rodney Hide coming down to the House and telling us what has gone on, because we are talking about the political career of a Minister of the Crown.
I return to the point about the defence documents, because it is one of the critical issues as to why, apparently, Mr Hide acted against his Minister. Mrs Roy went to him to raise her concerns about the fact that he had been sneaking papers from her desk—classified defence documents—that he was not entitled to receive. She checked that, and Rodney Hide acted against her in that respect. When she was bullied by Mr Hide on that, the matter was then raised by the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister knew that in that office there were concerns about documents relating to the defence portfolio, but yesterday when Mr Key was asked why Heather Roy had been removed from office, he said he had no idea. We are expected to believe that John Key had no idea, whatsoever, why a Minister of his Government left office yesterday. It is of huge concern to the parliamentary Opposition, and I believe to the public, that the Prime Minister is prepared to argue that he had no idea why a Minister was forced to leave office.
We were also told, by way of the newspaper today, that the new deputy leader of ACT Party, John Boscawen, lodged his challenge for the deputy leadership on 5 August. It is impossible to believe that from 5 August through to yesterday, 17 August, John Key was not advised of this challenge by the ACT Party. We know how close John Key is to Rodney Hide. We know that John Key is propping up the leadership of Rodney Hide at the present time, because they are political soulmates, in that respect. It is impossible to believe John Key’s assertion that from 5 August through until yesterday he had no idea that this was going on.
It is even more impossible to believe, accept, or even understand that having heard about the coup, if John Key was indeed aware of it, he never thought in any of his conversations with Rodney Hide to ask why it was happening, what was going on there, and why the party was thinking of changing its deputy leader. If the ACT Party’s ministerial responsibilities were to be the responsibility of the ACT Party alone, then why was Heather Roy’s name specifically written into the confidence and supply agreement? If, as the Prime Minister, Mr Key, says, it is simply a matter for support parties to decide whom they supply as Ministers, why was it written down in black and white that Heather Roy and Rodney Hide would be the Ministers in this Government? John Key yesterday changed the political history of the collective responsibility of Cabinet, and the Cabinet Manual, with the new term that he called “the implied concept of ministerial work”. So it does not matter now what is written in black and white as parties sign up to a Government, and go to the Governor-General and say they have the numbers to run the country; we now work on the principle, called the “implied concept”, of the Key Government about who gets ministerial warrants. This is impossible to take seriously. It is impossible for there to be credibility on it at the point that that ministerial warrant was taken away by Mr Hide.
Secondly, if Mr Hide was so keen to move against Mrs Roy because he was so anxious to get his hands on those defence documents—the action that Mrs Roy so objected to—why, when all the portfolios were redistributed yesterday, did the ACT party decide to give up the defence portfolio? There was Rodney Hide going through the Minister’s desk, checking out all the papers that he was not entitled to—[Interruption] The deputy leader of the Labour Party made a very unkind suggestion! Rodney Hide went through Heather Roy’s papers and took her ministerial documents without her permission because, apparently, it was so important that he should be aware of what was happening in the defence portfolio, yet the whole time Mr Hide was planning on giving up that portfolio as soon as he could get rid of Heather Roy. But the real reason, we think—we do not know; we have to assume—that this Minister has been summarily dismissed, behind closed doors in the ACT Party caucus room, is that Mr Hide believed that she was being far too critical of his leadership. Well, she will never be lonely, in that particular respect. I say to Mrs Roy that she will not suffer alone, in that regard.
It is a bit rich of Mr Hide to sack a Minister, to execute a Minister politically, and to keep it a secret, when he himself is on record as having gone around this country—when he thought he was off the record—criticising not just any Minister but the Prime Minister of New Zealand. We remember Rodney Hide telling a table of business people that the only problem his party had in its support of the National-led Government was that Mr Key “doesn’t do anything”, and that, although he was highly regarded, “ACT did everything and we are hated”. So Rodney Hide went around the place criticising the Prime Minister up hill and down dale, but that had no implication whatsoever on his ministerial role. The Hon Rodney Hide was protected in his job by John Key, despite the overt criticism being made by Rodney Hide. Members should remember that that was the only occasion when Rodney Hide was caught out telling that particular story about John Key; we have no idea how many other functions around this country the Hon Rodney Hide has gone to, criticising the Prime Minister behind his back.
But as soon as Heather Roy raised some criticism of her leader, Rodney Hide, then he could not wait to put the knife into her and to politically execute her yesterday. Having overseen her political execution, he fronted up to the media conference and simply said that caucus had made a decision and that it was a tough day for him. He said that people should feel sorry for him. He said that it might have been a tough day for Heather, as well, so people should feel sorry for her, but he would not discuss what went on at caucus. Well, I am sorry, I tell Mr Hide, but for over 12 years as an Opposition member of Parliament he has stood here and railed for higher standards in our Parliament, higher standards in our Government, and higher standards from our Ministers. But when that man is finally in the driving seat himself, he does not have the fortitude to get on and deliver to the same standards that he has demanded from so many other people. That is why there is intense criticism, not only of the way he acted in the time leading up to the events of yesterday but of the way he acted once he finally got rid of Heather Roy. He could not even show the leadership required to front up to the public and explain what had gone on.
It seems unbelievable that a Minister can be dismissed from her portfolio without an explanation being given, but that is what has happened here. Ministers have come and gone over the years on both sides of politics, but there has always been an explanation from the Prime Minister, or from the leader of the party, about what has gone on. However, it seems here that this has not been the case, at all. When John Key would not back his own Minister, he had an opportunity to tell the country why that was.
Heather Roy tried to reach out to John Key on Monday night. She rang him and left a message on his voice mail. John Key would not call her back. But John Key was very quick to call Rodney Hide in December when the supposed coup was on, to guarantee that if he were rolled as leader, then the coalition deal was off. In fact, the Government was so keen to prop up and protect Rodney Hide, it even talked about having an early general election because it was so keen to have Rodney Hide stay in his job. So there was constant communication between the National Party and the ACT Party at the time when Rodney Hide was on the ropes, but as soon as it was Heather Roy’s turn to be on the ropes, John Key wanted nothing to do with it. In fact, yesterday he said that he had no idea why she was voted out. It is absolutely unbelievable that that could be the truth. It is unbelievable that that could the case. What did Heather Roy say on the telephone to the Prime Minister? Why would the Prime Minister not come out and say that his Minister rang him, tell us what she had to say, and explain that he chose not to reply because it was an internal party matter? Yet after the dismissal yesterday he said that he would give her a call some time and tell her that she acted in a professional way and had done a good job as a Minister.
Even after the December troubles Rodney Hide was running around the country telling people that Heather Roy was someone who was standing up for consumers, and saying that it was about getting prices down for ordinary New Zealanders and households, and about getting quality up. He even went as far as to say that the ACT Party stood for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers—we were glad to get that clarification; we always thought it was something else—and that we had a Minister who was standing up for consumers. Rodney Hide was busy on the Q+A programme promoting Heather Roy and saying what a good job she was doing, yet yesterday he was prepared to oversee her political execution. The man who campaigned for transparency, openness, and accountability was not able to live up to his own standards that he has preached about.
In Rodney Hide’s 18 months as a Minister he has done grubby deals with the National Party at the expense of the Māori Party and Māori representation on the Auckland super-city, by threatening, in an outrageous way, to throw out his toys. Rodney Hide has campaigned with the National Party against his own deputy leader, and he has gone around New Zealand criticising John Key, because in Mr Hide’s heart of hearts he believes that no one is as good as he is. He believes that he is better than everyone else. Yet when the acid is being applied to him, whether it is in relation to his parliamentary entitlements, his ministerial leadership, or his party leadership, he is not living up to the expectations he puts on others, which he has touted about himself for year on year.
If a member is going to execute a political colleague—and Bill English knows what it is like to be on the receiving end of that—he or she should at least have the decency to front up and explain what the reason is. All we have from yesterday is the clarification that John Key will choose Rodney Hide over everyone else every time, and that it is possible to do these grubby political deals behind closed doors. Ministers of the Crown pay a price for that.
Finally, we know that John Boscawen will be the new deputy leader of the ACT Party. That is good news for lamington bakers everywhere, but it is not good news for the Parliament of New Zealand to see a Minister of the Crown executed in such a grubby fashion when she was the deputy leader of a support party of the Government. Rodney Hide should get up and explain to the country the sorts of things that he used to demand of others. He should apply the same litmus test to himself as he has applied to others. If he does not do that, then he is not worthy of being called a political leader, let alone a Minister of the Crown.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
I would like to thank the Opposition for the opportunity to talk about the stability and the cohesion of the Key National Government and its relationships with the ACT Party, United Future, and the Māori Party. I think that Labour is very disappointed that it has not had the running camera shots. It has not had the stand-up press conferences in the airports. It has not had the apologies. It has not had a leader, as well as his members, being chased around, and all the palaver that goes with the loving family that is the Labour Party under pressure. Labour is so disappointed that it has not seen that kind of performance going on around George Hawkins, or my good friend Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, who suddenly resigned, precipitating a by-election without telling her leader. Labour is so disappointed that the ACT Party has not indulged in melodrama, soap opera, mess-ups, mistakes, and apologies, which have been the chapter of the Labour Party for the last 3 months. I must say that new chapters are likely to be revealed as the months go on.
The relationship between the National Party and its support parties is, as we have often said, one of respect not necessarily agreement. That sensible description of our relationships, along with the consummate skills of the Prime Minister and the relentless attention of various Ministers and members of the respective caucuses to a positive relationship, has led to a cohesive and stable Government through some very difficult times. All small parties have to bear the pressures of being in Government, and I would have thought the Labour Party knew a bit about that. I can recall that at about this stage of the Labour Party’s political cycle—or, in fact, a wee bit later on—Jim Anderton was the leader of the Alliance in Parliament although he had been expelled from the Alliance out of Parliament. I am trying to work out whether that is exactly the obverse of the ridiculous situation with Chris Carter, who is not a member of the Labour Party in Parliament but is still alive and kicking and paying his subscription as a member of the Labour Party outside of Parliament.
Maurice Williamson would be very proud to be dragged along to Labour’s ruling council to be expelled. He has said that Phil Goff cannot win, just like Chris Carter, so why are they not trying to kick Maurice Williamson out of the Labour Party? They have not succeeded in moving Chris Carter one inch. He is a full-blooded, totally subscribed, 24-hour-a-day member of the Labour Party. Even though in Labour’s Stalinist way Chris Carter has been diagnosed as suffering from mental illness, which is what happens when anyone disagrees with anyone in the Labour Party, he is still there. I am sure that that little show will go on. Like the show Two and a Half Men it will continue with the same punchlines and that slightly wacky atmosphere for the next 9, 12, or 15 months through to the election. I left out George Hawkins and Shane Jones, but there will be more episodes.
The Government has developed a healthy and stable culture. I think it is pretty obvious that the ACT Party does not always agree with the Māori Party, and neither of those parties always agrees with the Government, but we have in those parties people who are committed to a national good for New Zealand, who have an ability to understand the complexity of the issues and who are able to deal with them when they are laid out in a transparent and respectful way. With that recipe this Government has been able to deal with some very complex issues. As the Minister of Finance, representing Cabinet’s effort to get New Zealand through a recession, for instance, I have found that all of our support parties—ACT, United Future, and the Māori Party—have a strong intuitive grip of what is needed to get through a recession. They do not agree with every detail of the Government’s economic policy, but we have been able to put together two coherent Budgets with the full support and involvement of those parties. The National Party appreciates that, but, more important, New Zealand as a nation is benefiting from what has been a unique combination of political interests and a uniquely successful style of management by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has, in the matter that is the subject of this debate, simply ensured the continuity of a competent executive. Small parties and big parties have their own internal issues that they deal with. The Prime Minister has made it plain that it is his prerogative as to who is in Cabinet. That is an issue that can be discussed at any time with minor parties and support parties, and it has been. He has simply ensured the continuity of the executive. I must pay a compliment to the ACT Party in the sense that whatever issues it has been dealing with, it has made absolutely sure there has been no disruption to the process of government. There has been no attempt to draw focus away from the big issues that the Government has to deal with. I know that Labour members are very disappointed that issues that they have, which over a series of months take night after night on TV to deal with, have been dealt with within the framework of this Government and by the ACT Party in a way that ensured that those things that are properly the province of a party membership in a caucus room are dealt with there, and those things that are properly required by a Government to continue with good government have remained there.
One of the reasons the ACT Party has worked with the Prime Minister through these circumstances is because it supports the Government’s economic programme. It is a comprehensive and wide-ranging programme. For instance, it knows that in order to get effective investment in infrastructure it needs to support this Government, and it has done so admirably. It is particularly focused on another part of our six-point plan, and that is reducing red tape. The leader of the ACT Party, the Hon Rodney Hide, has taken up a role somewhat as the conscience of the Government on this matter to make sure that the relentless pressure to regulate more is resisted, and that the relentless pressure to react to political circumstances with low-quality regulation is also resisted.
The ACT Party and all its members have shown a great deal of interest in the Government’s plans for making the public sector more productive, by delivering effective front-line services and reducing back-office costs. I am quite sure that the ACT caucus would rather that the National-led Government moved faster, that it consolidated the Budget more quickly, and that we reached surpluses more quickly. Those are all arguable propositions; other countries are following the kind of track that the ACT Party advocates. The United Kingdom would probably be the most obvious example. But because of the style of relationship that exists between National and its support parties we are able to debate those issues, to come to coherent decisions, and to implement them.
The ACT Party has also shown a great deal of interest in the Government’s tax moves, which the Government will implement on 1 October. That is because, I think, those members understand the reason for those tax changes. This economy has become unbalanced, with too much consumption and excessive borrowing to pay for that consumption, so we have increased taxes on consumption with an increase in GST. We have increased the effective tax rates on property, we have dropped the tax rates on income, work, savings, and investment, and dropped the company tax rate, and we have created a more conducive environment for exports. In principle, the ACT Party and National agree on that, and we were able to work through the detail of quite a complex package of tax reforms.
It is part of the skill of running a Government that a major party can work with minor parties in a way that is constructive and forward-looking. I am sure the support parties would agree that the skill with which the Prime Minister has gone about that task has been critical to their success in getting the kinds of changes they want, within reason, and to the Government’s success in being able to present a programme that is broadly supported by the New Zealand public. Of course, the Prime Minister’s efforts have been backed up by the efforts particularly of the spokespeople for the smaller parties, because they carry a large burden. There are a lot of us; there are hardly any of them. They have to cover all of the activities of Government with fewer resources and fewer personnel. They are, without exception, very hard-working and very strong contributors, even when we disagree or wish they did not contribute so strongly—which we do sometimes. So we are very pleased to work with that group of people.
The Opposition made a somewhat weak attempt today to take a particular event of yesterday and turn it into some kind of problem for the Government that warranted the urgent attention of the House. Well, it does not. The Government is stable, the Government is coherent, and the Government has a wide-ranging programme. The Government is putting in place changes that the small parties want and support, and that National can present to the public as a broad-based programme. We are very proud of the ongoing relationship with the ACT Party, and also with the other support parties in the Key-led National Government.
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
I stand to speak in this urgent debate. Many pressing issues are facing the country at the moment, so it is somewhat surprising to be speaking in a debate on this issue. But here we are. MMP is a great system. It is a system that means there is diversity in this Parliament in a way that there would not otherwise be. That means there are people in Parliament whom one strongly disagrees with. It is fair to say that there are strong disagreements between the ACT Party and the Green Party. None the less, we are both here because of the MMP system, and although we have different views it is part of the respect with which we treat each other that we listen to those views.
I think it is important that the smaller parties, the MMP parties, are in this Parliament and have a voice. It seems to me that today’s issue should be one of principle. It is not about Chris Carter or anyone else; it is about whether the ACT Party has the right to change its leaders. It seems to me that it does have that right, and that it is the fundamental right of the ACT Party to choose who its leader and deputy leader are, and, hence, as part of the agreement with National, to determine who the two ACT Ministers will be. Although ultimately it is up to the Prime Minister to choose his Ministers, as part of the agreement there has to be the give and take that allows the smaller parties to choose who their Ministers will be. So it seems to me that the ACT Party is entirely within its rights to choose who its leader is and to choose who its deputy leader is.
We can argue that Mr Hide should have told the country why Heather Roy was sacked. Clearly, there is an argument about transparency and openness, and the country would like to know why one of the Ministers of the Crown has changed. The country would like to know why the ACT Party went through that change. I strongly encourage Mr Hide and the others within the ACT Party to be open with the country, and to tell people why they chose to make this change in leadership. None the less, I stand by the principle that the ACT Party has the right to choose its own leaders through its own process. I think that that is a fundamental principle.
This is an opportunity, I guess, to talk about the ACT Party and its role in the Government, as the finance Minister just did. It may be the case, it seems to me, that the ruckus that ACT has just been through may weaken its hand in Government. In fact, ACT may find that it has a weaker hand in Government than it had previously. From the Green Party’s point of view, because we disagree with ACT on a large range of issues—privatisation, for example—that is not necessarily a bad thing.
The ACT Party is very pro-privatisation. If we privatised some of our assets they would go into overseas ownership. Ultimately, because it is hard to avoid, that would increase the current account deficit and add to the economic problems New Zealand already faces. So if the ACT Party is strengthened during this process, the problem will be that it adds to the privatisation agenda.
Likewise, as the finance Minister just spoke about, the ACT Party tends to be the party for supporting inequality. It wants a tax system that maximises inequality. That is one of its objectives and one of its fundamental principles. The problem with a policy that supports inequality is that it is bad for everybody. Whether people are wealthy or poor, a society that is more unequal is a worse society to live in. It also means that more and more of our resources would be used in the prison system, because the more unequal a society is, the higher the prison population is.
That, of course, combines with another tenet of the ACT Party, which is the so-called “tough on crime” policy. Basically that means locking up more and more people in jail for fewer and fewer crimes. That means—
David GarrettThat is quite right. The ACT Party is in favour of locking up more and more people for a wider and wider range of crimes—Mr Garrett is quite right. That means that more and more of the tax take would be spent on locking people up in jail. Because ACT wants to reduce the amount of tax that is taken but also wants to spend more and more money on prisons, there would be less and less money for spending on everything else.
If this process, this ruckus around Heather Roy, results in a weakening of the ACT Party agenda, then that is possibly a good thing for the country. It seems to me that it would be a good thing for the country if we did not go down the ACT line of having more privatisation, more inequality, and more people in prisons.
One of the other issues that Mr English touched on and is, I think, worth addressing is the deregulation policy that ACT—and to some degree National—has been pushing. We know that the leaky house fiasco, which is costing our country something like $20 billion, is a result of the deregulation that came with the Building Act of 1991. Had that Act, with its deregulation ethos, not come in, a lot of people would not have had leaky houses, and we would not have a $20 billion bill to repair those houses. One of the ACT’s fundamental tenets, which it has brought to this Parliament, is that deregulation methodology. It is, in fact, one of ACT’s strong points. The problem is that the 1991 Building Act has been very, very expensive for New Zealand.
The other part of this change that is quite significant is John Boscawen becoming a Minister. Mr Boscawen has many strong views, and they are honestly held views, but, clearly, he does not want to listen to the science on climate change. He is a climate change denier. He does not want to listen to the science on climate change, and it will be very dangerous for New Zealand if the executive is pushed in a direction where the science on climate change is more and more marginalised.
Will the replacement of Heather Roy with John Boscawen mean that the climate change deniers have more influence in the executive? That will be one of the challenges. In fact, the Government has weakened its emissions trading scheme already. It is not really coping with the increase in extreme weather events that is happening globally and that we need to prepare for, and that situation will become even more dangerous if those who do not want to read the science or listen to the science have a bigger say in the executive. That is one of the other dangers in this particular change in the ACT Party.
None the less, I accept that the ACT Party was voted for by New Zealanders. It has the right to be in this Parliament. It has the right to choose its own leaders. Although I may disagree with it on many issues and disagree with many of the policies of the ACT Party, I certainly respect its right to choose its leaders and to choose, as part of its agreement with National, which members of the ACT Party find themselves as Ministers in the executive. Thank you.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I thank the co-leader of the Greens Dr Russel Norman for his contribution. I also congratulate Mr Darren Hughes, who has given us the opportunity to have this urgent debate in the House. He had the wit to put the application in and get it across the line. I say to the member that with another 9 years in Opposition, he will start to be a good Opposition MP. I also say to Mr Hughes that we welcome the opportunity to have this discussion about the Government.
For the benefit of members opposite, I would also like to contrast the incredible stability of the arrangement between the National Party, the Māori Party, United Future, and the ACT Party with the arrangement between the Labour Party and the Alliance. What happened? It fell to bits. There was also the arrangement between the Labour Party and United Future. What happened? It fell to bits. Then there was the arrangement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First. What happened? It fell to bits. Here we have a Government made up of the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Māori Party. Yes, we have our differences, but we are working together extremely well. I put that down to Prime Minister John Key, who has done a fantastic job as Prime Minister for the benefit of the country and of this Parliament.
I say to members opposite that the ACT Party was elected, and we had said before the election that we would support John Key as Prime Minister and would support a National Government. We said that again on election night, and we have kept our word. The people of New Zealand know that they have a stable, centre-right Government that is getting on with the business. As a consequence of the ACT Party, we have the 2025 goal of catching up with Australia, which is now exercising the Labour Party, and so it should, because it is important that we lift our economic performance. We have the task force to measure our performance. We are working with the Minister of Finance, Bill English, to get spending under control after the country was left in a disastrous state. We have red tape under control, we have local government being reformed, we have our “three strikes” legislation, and we have our inter-party working-group on school choice. Let me address this matter.
Phil TwyfordLet me explain this, I say to Mr Twyford. Yes, it is the case that under our caucus rules, we can change the leader and the deputy leader, and we follow a process. As soon as—
Hon Steve ChadwickI want to explain this, because it will explain the difference between members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House, and the difference between our Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister. John Boscawen put it on notice in the ACT caucus that he would contest to become the deputy leader of the ACT Party.
Because it was John Boscawen’s view that he would make a better contribution to the ACT Party as the deputy leader than he was making in his previous role. He was perfectly entitled to do that. As soon as John Boscawen lodged that application, I told the Prime Minister about it. I told the Prime Minister 13 days ago—12 days before the vote—that John Boscawen had put forward his name to become the deputy leader of the ACT Party. That is the level of trust that we have as parties. We discussed it in detail.
Then what happened was that I discussed with Prime Minister John Key what would happen—
I tell Darren Hughes to be quiet for a minute, and I will tell him. I discussed with the Prime Minister what would happen in terms of our confidence and supply agreement if there was a change of deputy leader in the ACT Party.
No, we explained that it would be up to the caucus. We then discussed the situation. The Prime Minister explained that, actually, the ministerial position goes with being the deputy leader of the ACT Party.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
She’s named in the confidence and supply agreement. She’s named in it.
We had a discussion, I say to Mr Hughes. The Prime Minister and I worked out our situation. We worked out the timing. The ACT members turned up to a caucus meeting. John Boscawen made his case to the caucus. Heather Roy made her case to the caucus. The ACT caucus had a vote, and I informed the Prime Minister of the result.
Well, I tell members that there is a funny thing about what the Labour Party does not get. I will tell members why they do not get it. It is called democracy, I say to Mr Hughes. We do not live in a party that was known by the name “Helengrad”. The Prime Minister understands that in a democracy a caucus can have a vote. I know that that is a hard concept for Labour members to grasp, but the ACT caucus can vote to change its leader and its deputy leader. I was then able to inform the Prime Minister of the result of the vote, and we made the requisite changes.
Mr Hughes has made a great play about transparency and accountability—a great play about transparency and accountability. We were absolutely transparent with the Prime Minister about what was going on. This was internal party business, and it might have been that John Boscawen did not succeed. It might have been that John Boscawen did not succeed. In the event, he succeeded, and we had a democratic outcome in our caucus.
Let me say this about Helen Clark—I looked over there and I do not know why, but I thought of that other woman. Let me say this about Heather Roy. Members have never heard me say a bad thing about Heather Roy. Members have never heard me say anything bad about Heather Roy. I accepted the result of the caucus vote, and I said to Heather that I thought it would be a good idea for her to take 2 weeks’ leave, which she is doing. Unlike the Labour Party members, we do not go and say of a respected member that we think he or she is mentally deranged, which is what those members do. We do not have a member being chased around by people with cameras. We respect the members of our caucus. Heather is taking 2 weeks’ leave. We hope that Heather will come back—and I believe that this will be the case—and will continue to make a great contribution to the ACT Party as a caucus member. Why? Because it is important that ACT members work well together and that ACT supports this Government.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
This is the beginning of the end for the ACT Party. It will not be here at the next election, and this man’s responsible for that. First to 2 percent; next to zero percent.
Let me ask Mr Darren Hughes a question. I ask whether he is one of the ones who think that Labour can win at the next election, or whether he is with Mr Chris Carter, who tells the truth.
Oh, we are going to be toast at the next election. I have heard that being said for a long time. I was hearing that, Mr Hughes, when you were still in short pants. Actually, come to think of it, you are still in short pants.
The Speaker is not, today, in short pants. He might wear them around the farm, but not here in the House.
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I was referring to Mr Darren Hughes being in short pants—perish the image.
The ACT Party has emerged from this stronger—absolutely. I tell members that we have a stronger relationship with the National Government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, and, indeed, the Māori Party and United Future, because we know that these things can occur in a democracy. We have a commitment to the Government, the people of Epsom, and the people of New Zealand to provide good, stable Government, which is something that Labour could never do. Thank you very much.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora Matua. Kia ora huihui tātou katoa. Hei wāwāhi i taku kōrero me rere tonu ōku whakaaro ki te āhuatanga o te mate e pīkautia nei e Ngāti Porou. Ko Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes tērā, e takoto mai rā i runga i tōna marae. Ka mutu, ka huri ki Te Tai Hauāuru ki a Te Miringa Hōhāia, tērā o ngā pou o te ngahau o Parihaka. Koia tērā e takoto mai rā. Ki roto i a au, o roto i a Te Arawa, ko Peri Ngata tērā. Tēnei kāhui mate kua ngaro atu te tirohanga kanohi. Ahakoa kai te kōrerohia ko te āhuatanga e pā ana ki a ACT, i a au e tū nei, ko te tikanga o runga i te marae, kia kōrerohia wā tātau mate. Koinei au e tū nei. Me mihi rā ki a rātau. Waiho rātau kia moe, kia okioki. Ko tā tātau, ko te wānanga i ngā take o te wā. Nō reira, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa. Arā anō tētahi kōrero, kai roto i te Ao Māori.
Ko taua kōrero e pēnei ana “Whakatikatika i tōu ake marae i mua o te kōrero mō tētahi atu”. Nō reira, kāre i te tino pai ki a au te kōrero mō tēnei rōpū. Kai a rātau ō rātau tikanga, kai au ōku ake tikanga o roto i te Ao Māori. Ko te tikanga o tērā kōrero e pēnei ana. Kia katia tērā momo whiu i te kupu. Anei a Reipa e ārai atu, e pīkau nei, e hiki nei i te pū, ā, ka huri mai kia pēnei mai te pahū mai, ā, kua tukuna. Ēngari, anei anō a ACT, ka taea e ia te hiki tana pū, ka pahū atu ki a Reipa nā runga i te āhuatanga o te tangata Carter. Arā anō a Reipa, hikina tana pū, ka huri mai ki a Nāhinara, ko Richard Worth tērā. Ā, ko Nahinara, ka hikina tā rātau pū ki a mātau o te Pāti Māori, kāre anō tētahi kia puta ēngari, ko te tikanga o taku kōrero, he pērā anō te āhua. Tātau katoa o konei, he raruraru ka puta i waenganui i a tātau o roto i ngā rōpū, tātau katoa e taea ana e tēnā, e tēnā, e tēna o tēnei Whare te hiki atu i te pū, ā, ka tukuna atu ki tētahi atu o te Whare Pāremata. Koinā te tikanga o tērā kōrero “Whakatikatika i tōu ake marae i mua o te kōrero mō tērā”. Nō reira, anei au e kī nei, ā, he raruraru anō rā kua pahū ake i roto i te Pāti Māori ngā marama kua hipa ake ēngari, tōna mutunga mai kua noho piri, kua noho tata, ka tahi.
Ka rua, ko ngā āhuatanga o tēnā rōpū, o tēnā rōpū, kai a koutou tērā. Nō reira, kai te āhua whakaae atu ki te kōrero o te tumuaki, te kaiārahi o ngā Kākāriki me tana kōrero, ko ngā kōrero o tēnei rōpū, ko mātau ko te kī atu, kai a rātau te tikanga. Me te mōhio anō hoki, mēnā ka tū mai rātau ki a au a Pāti Māori, ka kī atu, e kī, e kī, e noho, e tau ki raro. Kāre mātau e paku whakaae atu, kia riro mā tētahi atu mātau e kohete mēnā kāre rātau i te mōhio ki ngā nekeneke o roto i a mātau. Nō reira, he paku kōrero tērā nō roto i te Ao Māori, kia kōre tētahi e noho i te rangirua.
I te mea ko te wahine nei he wahine pai. He wahine pai a ia. He wahine o roto i te tāne, ō, he uauatanga tērā i ētahi wā. Ki te noho te wahine i waenganui i ngā kāhui tāne, he āhua uaua. Nō reira, kua noho au, kua mahitahi au me tērā o ngā wahine, he wahine pai, i kaha nei ki te mahi i tāna mahi me te tūmanako ia, ka hoki mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. He moumou tērā wahine kia tukuna ki te koraha ēngari, kai a ia tonu te tikanga. Ko tā mātau ko te Pāti Māori, ko te kī atu, kei konei mātau hei hoa haere mō te rōpū Nāhinara, he wā tōna pea, ē, kua noho hei hoa haere mō tētahi atu. Ko wai ka mōhio? Ēngari tēnei wā, ko tā mātau titiro, kaua mō nāianei tonu nei, kaua mō āpōpō, kaua mō ātahirā, kai te titiro kē mātau mō ngā tau kai mua noa atu i te aroaro.
Ehara i te mea kei te rata atu au, mātau o te Pāti Māori, ki ngā kaupapa katoa e whai haeretia e te Rōpū ACT, kāo, kāo. Ko tā rātau ko te kī, kaua a Māori nei e noho i runga i te kaunihera o Tāmaki. Tino kawa mātau ki tērā whakaaro. Tino kawa. Kāre mātau i paku whakaae atu ki tērā. He aha i pērā ai tana kōrero? Nā te āhuatanga o te “democracy”. E kī, e kī. Ko tana kōrero, “one person, one vote”. Hā, te mutunga mai ka tae mai te rōpū nei i raro i te aha? I raro i te MMP. Kaua i runga i te āhuatanga o te one person, one vote.
Nō nātata nei kua puta ngā kōrero, ngā whakawhiu, ngā whakahē mō te āhuatanga o ngā whakataunga kerēme. Kua tae mai ngā iwi ki roto i ngā pakitara o te Whare nei, kua hara mai i runga i te humārie, kua tae mai nā runga i te hiahia kia whakatau i wā rātau kerēme i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi. He aha te mahi o te rōpū nei? Ē, karawhiuwhiu haere i ētahi kōrero ki te āhuatanga o te Ao Māori. Nō reira, koinei au e kī nei, kai te āhua noho kawa au ki ētahi o ngā kōrero o tēnei rōpū.
I tōna mutunga mai, ko ngā mahi e mahia nei e rātou, kai a rātau te tikanga. Pēnei i a au, ko ngā mahi o te Pāti Māori, kai a mātau te tikanga. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, he pai kē nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua puta i te rā nei, he pai tonu te noho hai hoa haere, ki te noho hai hoa riri. I tōna mutunga, he wā tōna, ā, he rangi ātaahua tēnei rāngi, he rā tōna, ē, kai te pō uriuri, kai te pō tangotango te ngākau. Nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te mea, e kore ētahi o ngā tūmanako o roto i te Pāti Māori i eke ki ngā taumata e wawatatia ana. Hoi anō, koinei te āhuatanga o te noho i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ēngari i tōna mutunga mai, ki te noho i tērā taha o te Whare, ē, kua rongo au i tērā momo noho. Kāre au e tino rata atu ki tērā momo noho i te mea, i tōna mutunga mai, ko tāu he whiu i te kōhatu, i ētahi wā ka hoki mai te kōhatu ki te pao i te ūpoko. Koinei te mate o te noho hei hoa riri.
Ka noho ki konei, ahakoa pai mai, kino mai, i tōna mutunga, nā runga i te āhua o tēnei mea o te kōrero, ka whiriwhirihia ngā painga mō tō rōpū, i tōna mutunga mō te Pāti Māori, mō te iwi Māori.
Nō reira, e kī ana tētahi kōrero i roto i te Ao Māori: “Ko te kai o te rangatira, he kōrero”. Nō reira, koinei tā mātau me te Rōpū Nāhinara, he kōrero, he wānanga, he whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro, he kohete, he amuamu, he kōhumuhumu ēngari, i tōna mutunga mai, ko te whakatau ka puta i waenganui i a māua, koia tērā. Ko te āhuatanga o tā Nahinara ki a ACT, kai a rātau tērā. Kāti, kua rahi tēnei.
Koinei te āhuatanga o te Pāti Māori, me tā mātau kī nei, ē, waiho ake tēnei rōpū ki a ia anō, ka waiho ake ngā raruraru, ngā painga, ngā kino, ngā āhua reka o te Pāti Māori ki a mātau. Kai te titiro mātau ki te paerangi, ki ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro kia eke ki te taumata e wawatatia nei e te Ao Māori. Nō reira Mr Speaker, e te Whare huri noa i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. As I open my address, my thoughts immediately go to the death borne by Ngāti Porou—that is Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes, lying in state on his marae. Next, I turn to the west, to Te Miringa Hōhāia, one of the pillars of the Parihaka International Peace Festival; he is the one lying there in state. Within my own region of Te Arawa, that is Peri Ngata lying there—this assemblage of the dead, lost, and no longer to be seen. Even though we are debating the situation of ACT, the protocol on the marae as I stand here is that we must acknowledge our deaths. This is why I am standing here. Acknowledging them is a must for me. Allow them to slumber and rest there. Our task is to debate the issues of the day. So to you, collectively throughout our House, I extend salutations to you, and to us all.
There is an aphorism in Māoridom: “Put your own marae in order before telling others to sort out theirs”. I am not really at ease commenting on that party. It has its own protocols, and I have mine from a Māori perspective. This statement means that we desist from throwing that kind of talk about. Here is Labour, defending, carrying and raising the gun, turning it in this direction so it bangs this way, and then firing it. But here is ACT, as well. It is able to raise its gun, and fire it at Labour, because of the situation of that man, the Hon Chris Carter. There is Labour again: it raises its gun, turns it towards National here, and, bang, that is Dr Richard Worth done for. National, in turn, raises its gun and aims it at us of the Māori Party. We have not lost anyone yet, but what I am implying has the same outcome. If a problem wells up amongst ourselves in our party—and it applies to us here—we can all, each one of us in this House, lift up the gun and fire it at someone else. That is the meaning of the aphorism “Put your own marae in order before telling others to sort out theirs”. What I am alluding to is that we too had a problem, which blew up within the Māori Party in the past months, but at the end of it all we have remained tight, close, and united.
That is one issue. The second one relates to situations that arise within each party. It is totally for them to deal with. So I agree somewhat with the statement by the co-leader of the Green Party, when he said that what that party is saying is endorsed by the Greens because it is its right. Mind you, if they get up and tell me what the Māori Party should be doing, my response would be “Is that so? Take a seat and settle down.” We would never agree to others taking us to task if they do not know how we operate internally. Not one bit. That is a little bit of advice from a Māori way of looking at things, so that no one is confused.
Because this woman is a good one; she is fine. She sits amongst males, but can be difficult at times. To live in a male environment can be difficult. However, I have experienced it; I have worked alongside her, and she is good. She works hard at carrying out her responsibilities. The hope is that she comes back into the House. It is a waste for that woman to be left out in the wilderness, but the obligation is still with her. We of the Māori Party say that we remain here as a coalition partner with the National Party, but there may come a time when it is with someone else. Who knows? But at this time we are not just looking for now, for tomorrow, or whenever, but for the distant future.
It is not as though I am, or we of the Māori Party are, satisfied with all the policies the ACT Party is running—no, no. They advocate that Māori people should not be represented on the Auckland Council. We find that idea very distasteful—not palatable, at all. We do not agree with that, at all—not one bit. What prompted that? Because it is “democracy”. Yeah, right! “One person, one vote” is what the member goes on about. So in the end, how did that party get here, and under what banner? It was under MMP—not under the one person, one vote principle.
Remarks, sanctions, and objections about settlement claims have appeared recently. Tribes have arrived here, within the confines of this Chamber, in all modesty and with the desire that their claims under the Treaty of Waitangi be settled. So what is that party doing? It is giving anything to do with Māoridom a real bash. That is why I am saying that some statements by that party leave a bitter taste in my mouth. But in the end, what they do in their party is their business; that is their right. And what we do in the Māori Party is ours to deal with. We have that right, as well. However, I must concede that on the basis of what came out of the speeches today, it is somewhat comforting to be a coalition partner, and not in Opposition.
At the end of it all, there will be a time when today is a beautiful day, and another time when one experiences the dark and gloomy side of being here. Why? Because some aspirations within the Māori Party will not be achieved to the level desired. However, that is the situation of being here in this Chamber. In the end, being on that side of the House—and I have been there—is an experience that is rather disconcerting, because the role of an Opposition is to throw stones. At times, the stone will fly back and hit you on the head. That is the trouble with being in Opposition.
But when you sit here on this side, despite the good and bad times one is able to negotiate through the power of talk what would ultimately be for the benefit of the Māori Party and the Māori people.
There is a proverb in Māoridom:“Talk is sustenance to the chief”. That is us and the National Party—talking, holding discussions, exchanging views, scolding, whispering. The decision that emerges between us at the end of it becomes a final and joint one. What National and ACT arrive at between them is theirs. Enough said. That is sufficient.
The situation as far as the Māori Party is concerned, and we say again, is to leave that party to deal with what is rightfully theirs to sort out. The problems and the benefits, and the bad and the delightful that concern the Māori Party, should be left for us to address. We are looking at the distant horizon, and to the years ahead, when Māoridom reaches the desired pinnacle. To you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone throughout our House, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all .]
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I join my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, who has just resumed his seat, in acknowledging the death of Koro Dewes, who was someone I spent quite a lot of time with over the last 35 years. I first went to Tikitiki with him in, I think, early 1975, and we spent some good times in the wharenui around the fire until the—well, I was about to say until the early hours of the morning, but it was probably later than that. He was someone who made a difference to my life and he was a very special person. There are some other stories I could tell that might be appropriate for the marae, but probably are not appropriate for the House.
Having joined with the member on that point, I will take a contrary point of view on whether it is necessary within politics to have transparency and accountability. We have had a party, ACT, that has stood for those principles. Openness has been extremely important from its point of view. What we have seen yesterday and today is a party that is attempting to shut down debate and not give reasons to the public for, as it was described by Rodney Hide, the case that was made for change by John Boscawen. Of course parties change their leaders and deputy leaders all the time. I think the closest parallel to this case that I can remember is David Lange taking out Bob Tizard in the early 1980s or—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
—in 1979. It was pretty bitter. Roger Douglas was in the Labour caucus at that time and he was one of the main proponents of that change. I gather he was on the other side, on the receiving end, on this particular occasion.
We have heard some things in this House today from Rodney Hide that can only be nonsense. He has talked about his respect for Heather Roy. If he had any respect for Heather Roy at all, he would be honest with this House and with the public of New Zealand about the reasons she has gone.
Hon Annette KingHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, I am not saying that he has to vote for her and I am not saying that the party cannot change. I am saying that we expect from members of this Parliament, and from people who are getting extra salaries as a result of being leaders of parties, some sort of honesty, transparency, and straightforwardness as to the reasons for what they have done. What is also interesting to me is the degree of complicity from John Key in this change. His closeness to Rodney Hide has become clear. We have been told in the House today that John Key knew for 13 days that Heather Roy was to be taken out, but he would not return a phone call from Heather Roy. We have to be very careful how we express this in the House, but I would have said that a man of courage, a man of integrity, and a man who supported his Ministers when he is Prime Minister would have taken that phone call. He would have had the backbone to take the phone call and listen to Heather Roy. He did not have to say anything or agree with her, but to say that he would not talk to her because Rodney Hide has told him not to is an indication of who is pulling the strings in that particular relationship.
It has been a little bit apparent for some time that this has been coming. Heather Roy is straightforward. She is honest. She does not take the Boscawen approach and the Hide approach of knifing people in the back. She has made it clear that she wanted an ACT Party that had enough votes to make a difference. She wanted an ACT Party in the House that was not dependent on one member in the way that it is now. She wanted ACT to have broader appeal and to be a principled party, the way it was when Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas had a leading role in the party in the past. She said that the current approach that is being taken is not good enough, but she also asked some other questions.
I understand that one of the questions she asked was whether it was appropriate for the ACT Party to be taking money from David Henderson when he was not paying his other bills. She asked whether it was appropriate for the ACT Party to be taking money from David Henderson when he was not paying the Inland Revenue Department and the Christchurch City Council. She also asked whether it was appropriate for David Henderson, Bob Parker, Rodney Hide, and John Key to go to Queenstown together and spend time making political arrangements. Was it appropriate for the four of them to be together in Queenstown? Was that appropriate for Rodney Hide as a Minister? It was even less appropriate for the Prime Minister to spend time with Bob Parker, Rodney Hide, and “Davo”—as he is called by Rodney Hide—Henderson. I think that Heather Roy asked the right questions as to what is appropriate behaviour for the Prime Minister and for her own party leader. I think the idea of meeting in that way with David Henderson is wrong. The idea of taking money from someone who is not paying the Christchurch City Council or the Inland Revenue Department is wrong, and a party should not do it. I commend Heather Roy for blowing the whistle on that sort of arrangement.
I think we are beginning to get pretty close to what the real story is—that is, that Heather Roy said to Rodney Hide that she thought it was inappropriate for him to take documents from her office. I understand that he has denied taking documents that he was not meant to have. Well, certainly within the previous Labour Government, there were documents that were top secret documents that some Ministers got and others did not. It was not a matter of security clearance because we did not clear our Ministers, but we had arrangements whereby our senior group of Ministers—if, for example, the Minister of Defence was a less senior Minister and that person was involved—had clearance for those documents and other Ministers did not. We thought that that was appropriate, especially when it concerned the safety of New Zealand service people or security people abroad or in New Zealand. I am not sure whether we agreed, but Helen Clark said that the arrangements would be like that.
I want to know why Rodney Hide took those papers and why he gave them to Nick Kearney, a former member of the ACT board. I am not saying that he gave them to him directly; there might have been a staff member involved. Nick Kearney was, until last night, a member of the ACT board. He resigned from the ACT board because he was caught trying to give New Zealand defence assessment papers to a blogger. He picked the wrong blogger, because that person was an ex-military person who had integrity and who said that that was inappropriate and should not happen. Apparently, now the SIS is involved. I do not want to go too far down that track, because, you know, we do not talk about those matters too much in the House. I ask the ACT Party why Heather Roy got the sack because one of Rodney Hide’s mates on the board got some secret papers. It is absolutely wrong. John Key, who is in charge of the SIS and the overall security intelligence situation in New Zealand, needs to tidy that party’s act up and not let it sack a Minister for having integrity.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this
The fact is that within the ACT Party caucus we have a democratic process in terms of electing our leaders and deputy leaders.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS Link to this
I will get to Labour in a moment. This week we had a vote of 3 to 2 to have a change of deputy leader. This vote was like every other vote that I have seen within Labour or anywhere else.
Heather, as a result of that vote, is somewhat bruised, but I have seen a lot of people who have been replaced bruised in that way. I have talked to Heather today, and I know that she accepts the result. She is looking forward to coming back to Parliament and sitting on the Education and Science Committee; she will be taking my place, I might add. She wants also to look after the health vote, which I am responsible for, and I think we have been talking about her taking over her old bill, the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. In other words, she is ready to get on with the job. Naturally she is hurt about what has occurred; one would not be human otherwise.
Unlike the Labour Party, the ACT Party has a democratic process. The Labour Party used to have a democratic process in the 1970s and 1980s, and I can remember a number of votes then. Trevor Mallard mentioned a vote for the deputy leadership between Bob Tizard and David Lange. At that time it was a democratic process. When Cabinet was elected, there was always a democratic vote. Generally speaking, we would see 13, 14, or 15 members get through on the first ballot, and then we would see up to another 20 ballots before we finally arrived at 20 votes, or 20 people in Cabinet.
But, of course, that changed recently. The Labour Party does not have a democratic process any more. Helen Clark changed all that. She was for a democratic process if she got in in the 1980s, but was not so happy when she did not. She had an arrangement whereby she would sit down with Michael Cullen and they would prepare a list of 20 members. They would go and touch those 20 members on the shoulder and say that they had decided that they should be in Cabinet, but they could be in Cabinet only if they were prepared to vote for the other 19 members whom they had decided on. We had this situation, under Helen, whereby she tapped 18 members on the shoulder and said they were in Cabinet, but only if they voted for the other 17. That was not necessarily a majority. Then they selected six or seven members who would be Associate Ministers, and they did the same job on them. They said they were sorry they did not get into Cabinet and that they were not on the list to get into Cabinet, but they would be pleased to know they were Associate Ministers. But they could be an Associate Minister only if they voted for the 20 members in Cabinet. That is the democratic process of the new Labour Party.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS Link to this
There is no transparency whatsoever in the Labour Party. I think the only person who stood up—
Sue MoroneyHon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS Link to this
Oh, I am wrong, am I? I do not think so. That is the democracy that now goes on within the Labour Party.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I find this extraordinary. ACT is supposedly the party of transparency, led by Rodney Hide, who has shown us all, in the time I have been in Parliament, his complete lack of transparency and accountability. There was his travel, of course, and now we see that a Minister has been deposed and the people of New Zealand have not been informed at all as to the reasons for that. We have the unbelievable situation of the Prime Minister telling us that despite knowing that this was on the cards for nearly 2 weeks, as we found out recently, he has no idea why. That is what he told the public of New Zealand.
What are we to make of this? What are we to make of the demise of Heather Roy? Is it because she did not do a good job as a Minister? Is it because of some of the very serious matters that my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined, about secret papers and papers being taken by Rodney Hide?
Certainly, we know that Rodney Hide is indeed a bully. As a member of Parliament from Auckland, I know that to be true, as do all Aucklanders. We have seen his bullying behaviour and tactics over the formation of the super-city. We now see that with a caucus of five members, he cannot control a situation without having to throw out one of his own members—in fact, his own deputy. We do wonder what that says about his ability to establish a structure that works for the diverse population that makes up Auckland.
But who is in charge here? Certainly, we have to wonder whether the real reason that Heather Roy is gone is that Rodney Hide has all of the power in the ACT Party. After all, every single one of those members is reliant entirely on Rodney Hide, and on Rodney Hide winning Epsom. Without Rodney, there is no ACT Party in this Parliament. He certainly has enormous power, and we know that he is a bully. If we put those two things together, then clearly Rodney wanted Heather Roy gone. We do not know the precise reason—whether she challenged him, as has already been asserted, or whether he felt she was not up to the job. The Prime Minister, as, effectively, the person in charge of our Cabinet, the most senior person in the country, cannot tell us the reason either. Well, I think that New Zealanders have a right to know.
I will also take the time to talk about what this says about the consumer affairs portfolio. I congratulate the new Minister of Consumer Affairs. I think that is only proper, as I am Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson. I will be working with Mr Boscawen in a productive manner, I am sure. But what message does it send about the importance of this portfolio? Basically, ACT can just get rid of the current Minister and put another one of its members in her place. I wonder about that.
Consumer affairs is particularly important in tough economic times, like the times we are facing at the moment. The unemployment rate has risen to 6.8 percent in the last quarter, and 159,000 people are unemployed. There have been 19,000 more people unemployed over the last 3 months. In tough economic times, making sure that consumers are well informed, making sure that consumers are protected from rorts and rip-offs, is particularly important. Having some sense of what has happened to the Minister of Consumer Affairs seems to me to be an important question for the public of New Zealand.
The Minister has effectively been summarily dismissed—something that this Government is very fond of. All New Zealanders, for the first 3 months of their employment, will be in the situation where they can be dismissed without any reason being given and without any recourse to justice. Of course, that is precisely the situation that Heather Roy is in.
I will make just a few comments about consumer affairs, in a very constructive manner, to Mr Boscawen as the new Minister. I think that a number of areas need to be looked at, such as improving consumer knowledge and protection, and looking after vulnerable consumers. I am hopeful that Mr Boscawen’s stated concern for the victims of loan sharks may mean that we will have more interest shown in this particularly important issue—one that National and ACT to date have shown complete disdain for and a lack of concern about.
I recommend to Mr Boscawen that targeting exploitation is pretty important. Of course there is the need to update consumer law, but in a way that takes account of the view of consumers. One of the areas that I think is a problem for an ACT Minister of Consumer Affairs is that consumer affairs requires regulation, which is something that we know ACT is not particularly aware of. Finally, the other matter is the need for recognition of greater global consumer awareness. Thank you.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
Political walruses rolling in a sea of sewer water—that is the occupation of members on that side of the House. They are not rolling in it; they are wallowing in the sea of sewer water. What we see today, yet again, is Labour Party members jumping into the gutter at every opportunity that is presented to them. This debate is a political exemplar of the stark differences between the two sides of the House. Members on this side of the House are focused on taking New Zealand forward, lifting our economic game, and lifting wages. We are totally focused on that. I will be talking about that plan. Members opposite are wallowing in a sea of sewer water. They have personal agendas and they attack other parties. That is what they are all about. Whenever there has been an opportunity, they have taken it. Whether it be in respect of Richard Worth, digging dirt on John Key throughout the last election, or sending people to Australia to dig dirt on personalities, that is the agenda of members on the other side. But members on this side are focused on taking this economy and this country forward. We have had plenty of opportunities to dig the dirt and go after Chris Carter and Shane Jones when those situations were presented. In previous general debates, we have had plenty of opportunities to talk ad infinitum about the difficulties they got themselves into. Did anyone hear anything about that from members on this side?
There was nothing. We are focused on an agenda of taking this country forward, while members opposite wallow in the sewer. The sooner they realise that they need to get themselves out of the sewer, the sooner New Zealanders might start listening to what they are saying.
I will use the rest of my time to talk about lifting our game for this economy, because that is what I am interested in. I want to talk about the amazing plan that is led by the Prime Minister. This plan will take this country forward in leaps and bounds. It is a six-point plan for a growth-enhancing tax system. It is absolutely fantastic. We want better, smarter public services. We want to lift education in schools, and that is being done through the work of the wonderful Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, who is doing a fantastic job around the country. Parents and teachers are getting on board with national standards. It is absolutely magnificent.
Another part of the plan is boosting infrastructure, and we are seeing a roll-out of infrastructure around the country. It is absolutely magic. We want better business innovation and an ambitious trade agenda. When I go back to the Hawke’s Bay, all of a sudden the sheep and beef industry has options for exporting its lamb. The other day, one guy told me that the industry had actually turned down Sainsbury’s, because the industry now has other options in other markets. That is absolutely magic and is lifting the game for our economy.
The sixth part of the plan is cutting red tape and regulation. Members on this side have a plan to take the economy forward and lift our game. Members opposite continue to wallow in a sea of political sewage water. That is them; that is what they do. Mr Mallard is making swim-like movements. I rest my case. We are here for the economy and for the people of New Zealand. We are focused on the things that matter to hard-working Kiwis. Thank you.