General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:15937] 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I want to take members through some of the highlights of the Labour Government last week. It started with the shock announcement of 29000 job losses and an even more shocking statement by Ruth Dyson the Minister of Social Development and Employment that 29000 shock job losses was “not bad news”. I suppose it was not except for the 29000 people who lost their jobs. Then there was the knee-jerk back-down on the emissions trading scheme. The Labour Government gave away its main sustainability platform just last week amid anger from its core support base in Maoridom that the emissions trading scheme would knock hundreds of millions of dollars off the value of assets they had received as Treaty settlements. And that is in only a couple of days. Then there is the prospect that the Government is losing the support of its coalition partners which are just busting to break ranks on unpopular legislation so that they can survive the election. And then we saw in the last few days the competent best-ever managerially brilliant politicians in the Labour Government scrambling over revelations of a cover-up of an immigration scam it has known about for 3 years that implicates three or four of its Ministers and has one of its members in front of the courts on corruption charges. And apparently everything is going fine! 
The only good thing is that Helen Clark has left the country to leave Michael Cullen to face the music on a Government in meltdown. But those are only the small details of what has gone wrong. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The train set. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh I forgot. There is the revelation that it will cost taxpayers several hundred millions more to buy a train company that we did not need to buy because the Minister of Finance either was deceitful and did not tell us the numbers or was incompetent because he did not know the numbers. But who cares? It is only a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money and what is a few hundred million dollars between Dr Cullen and his new friend Paul Little who has walked all over us and added a quarter of a billion dollars to the Australian shareholders in the rail company because Dr Cullen says that he does not want to pay them a subsidy? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The cupboard will be bare. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The cupboard will be bare. But the worst news is this. Last night the Australian Government racked up competition for the talent of every New Zealander with any aspiration by locking in tax cuts—3 more years of tax cuts after 5 years of tax cuts that have already been put in place. Do members know what else it did? It locked in 3 years of tax cuts to the value of $31 billion and then it added a fourth year of a further $15 billion to its already 3-year tax cut programme. 
What has little old New Zealand been doing? It has been lying around on the beach sunning itself while Dr Cullen composes his brilliantly anguished speeches about why he has to give tax cuts. But the social democrat in him means that he will do it in a way that guarantees he loses the election because then he can feel morally justified about making working New Zealanders go 10 years with no tax cuts while Australian workers are getting 8 years of tax cuts and another one added on to the end of it which is bigger than anything they have had before. That is the difference. 
So it is true. Australia wants New Zealanders working in Australia more than the Labour Government wants New Zealanders working here. Dr Cullen has this bizarre analysis that somehow we solve New Zealand’s literacy and numeracy problem by exporting people to Australia. He says that the ones who go are functionally innumerate. That is how he describes them. So the ones who cannot count leave the place—apparently; according to Labour—to go to a Government that is competing vigorously for our talent. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Would the National members please tell the Government why they have voted against every tax cut this Government has put forward? Why was it when we came up with Working for Families and all of the tax credits associated with that that they bolted and voted against it? Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of families are benefiting—against the wish of the National Party. Why when the KiwiSaver scheme came in—which now has more than half a million people belonging to it—and those massive tax changes came into place did the National Party decide to vote against it? Why when we decided to give tax cuts to businesses did National members vote against that? When we said that the 33c tax rate needed to come down to 30c they voted against it. Why when we said that we would have a research and development tax credit of 15 percent did those members vote against that? Why in the 8½ years of this Government every time we have decided to make it easier for savers businesses or families have those members voted against it? Why do they say that this Government never changes tax rates and never goes for tax cuts yet every time we have done it they have voted against it? Why do they continue to do that? 
I think I have worked out why those members are so obsessed by the buy-back of the rail carriages. I reckon that I have worked out why they did not want us to buy out Toll and I think it is to do with John Key’s history. In 1993 the then National Government sold New Zealand Rail. It sold the locomotives it sold the wagons and it sold the track. It was a disastrous privatisation. What we now know is that the Wellington branch of the Bankers Trust was the vendor’s adviser. It clipped the ticket to the tune of probably $3 million or $4 million—that is the reported estimate. What has not been made very clear is that John Key worked for the vendor’s adviser. John Key worked for the Bankers Trust the vendor’s adviser in 1993. He rose to lead its foreign exchange desk. He rose to have some position called treasurer within the Bankers Trust. He would have been in his 30s. He would have been surrounded by the purchasers. Who were they? They were Fay and Richwhite. Do members remember those names? That was where John the trader was at that time. So he probably thought it was a pretty good privatisation. He probably thought that he had done a pretty good job whatever it was on his part as he worked for the Bankers Trust. 
That is why all these years later when it comes full circle everyone in New Zealand thinks that it is a good idea to have an integrated train system to have an integrated rail network and to have better control over our land transport system and John Key says that is “buying back the train set”. And Bill English in the remarks he has just made again misquotes and misrepresents the price paid. He does it on purpose because National members do not like it. They do not like the idea of the Government owning something that John Key had a hand in selling. That is the truth of it. You see that is because John Key is the trader. Open up John Key and what do we have underneath? We have ourselves a trader. First and foremost he is always a trader. He comes into politics and he thinks that politics is about trading. He does not think about political philosophy he does not think about making a stand and debating his position—whatever it is—in the spectrum. He thinks about trading. 
That is why National has been swallowing dead rats for the last 12 months—trading policy changes for votes. Those members have decided that they will not do the things they really think they would like to do like selling assets even though deep down they really want to. That is why there are splits and divisions right through the National Party caucus. Actually I will just sit with asset sales which will do as an example. Richard Worth wants to partially privatise everything; David Carter wants to privatise but only Landcorp; and Tony Ryall when he last had the chance to do privatisation privatised so quickly that his leader the former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley said one day rather mischievously “Oh I wonder what Tony has sold today.” You see they are really privatisers at heart but John Key the trader says “Oh the public don’t like it so we will inoculate them against that particular predilection that we have. Our proclivity will remain under the radar. We will be a very small target. We will simply run the clock down to the election and see whether we can fool them.” Well we have got news for the National Party. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Yesterday was a down day. The Minister for Social Development and Employment warned the nation last week that employment figures were likely to go up and down over the next 18 months and down they went. Tragically yesterday morning the 466 staff at the Oringi meatworks in Dannevirke realised the full effect of that warning when the PPCS company’s “right-sizing programme” resulted in the closure of the works. 
Last week’s downers took place in the Coromandel where Carter Holt Harvey dismantled 145 jobs on the spot at its Kopu sawmill and in Whangarei where Tenix Shipbuilding let 60 jobs go. Before that there were down days in Mosgiel as 450 jobs disappeared from Fisher and Paykel. Another 50 jobs were lost when Tamahine Knitwear closed its doors; a possible 150 jobs were lost in Ashburton when Design Line shut up shop; and a massive 11300 jobs were lost from the construction industry almost 6000 from manufacturing. 
In fact there have been an awful lot of down days in recent times so much so that the latest quarterly employment survey has demonstrated a decline in the number of people in jobs on a scale that has been unprecedented and unseen since 1989. If there was any doubt at all that we are experiencing some pretty dismal days in the job stakes the economists removed any question. ASB Bank chief economist Nick Tuffley described the job figures as “very grim”. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway said he had heard of employers in Te Waipounamu who are regularly seeing close to 100 hopefuls turning up for job interviews whereas in other years they would be lucky to get five applicants. Westpac chief economist Brendan O’Donovan called the statistics an “absolute shocker” and described them as “extraordinarily weak”. 
Although New Zealanders and all the commentators and economists are worried about the loss of some 29000 jobs the Minister in charge had the audacity to say “This is not a dramatic change if we look at the overall picture.” Even worse she said “I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually.” Well try saying “Actually it’s not bad news.” to the workers of Dannevirke—the families who are now struck by another blow in the wake of last year’s closure of Norsewear and the closure of the Feltex Carpets plant in 2006. 
These figures are all down and no up. But where things begin to get really grim is when we look at the differences and the disparities between groups of New Zealanders. I refer to New Zealanders whose unemployment rates shot up to 8.6 percent and 8.2 percent respectively—Maori and Pasifika New Zealanders. It is a pretty significant contrast to other groups of New Zealanders—Europeans sit at a rate of 3 percent compared with 8.6 percent for Maori. 
The Maori Party has sat in this House for 2½ years and it has been reminded every day of the gigantic gaps that still exist after this Parliament decided it was no longer fashionable to talk about closing the gaps. We have sat witness to report after report that shows little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation for certain groups of New Zealanders. We wonder when they will enjoy the fruits of the economic growth that the Minister alludes to as “the ups of the cycle”. When will we see the equitable distribution of wealth that will raise the standard of living of all individuals in this country especially those on lower incomes? How long does this nation have to wait before the gross disparity between the employment prospects of Maori and Pasifika peoples and other New Zealanders is removed? 
The good news we are all waiting for is the announcement of a Government that cares and will take up the urgent social legal and constitutional imperative of fundamental change in order to end these injustices. Until that day comes we will be forever relegated to the status of a nation in a position that is extraordinarily weak an utter shocker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It was sad to observe in the House this afternoon the Hon Dr Michael Cullen on behalf of the Minister of State Services defending what has to be the indefensible. The circumstances surrounding the resignation of Dr Mary Anne Thompson from the Immigration Service are backgrounded by not only the Government’s knowledge of what was going wrong in that department but its deliberate attempts to cover it up and to keep it from the people of New Zealand. Let us just go back for a minute and look at what happened. 
Firstly the allegations that Dr Thompson had been putting pressure on staff inside her department to give approvals to her relatives and friends to gain residence in this country date back to late 2005. The then head of the Department of Labour which is the over-body for the Immigration Service called in those people who were making the allegations and concluded that there had to be some further investigation. He instructed Mr David Oughton to conduct that investigation and received an interim report on the matter in May of 2007. He received the final report on that matter in July of 2007. We are told through the press and through comments made by other Ministers that the Minister of Immigration saw that report in July of 2007. The Minister at the time was the Hon David Cunliffe and he chose to do nothing. When he was replaced moved on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove picked up that report in December. Still there was nothing done. 
It was not until the Television New Zealand journalists started getting the information themselves from people who had been affected by these activities and did the investigations both here and in Kiribati that the full extent of what had been going on and more important what had been covered up by the Government were laid as the bare facts before the public. At that point the Prime Minister going into panic mode almost decided that it probably was a good idea to have a further investigation. She noted that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was making investigations in that regard and that he was keeping his colleagues informed. She very skilfully also said that she was “simply an onlooker”. 
Let us just step back a little bit to work out how this all should come together. Firstly when a chief of a department comes to a Minister and says “I am getting an investigation conducted on a senior civil servant in my department.” what would we expect that Minister to do? We would expect that Minister at least to notify the State Services Commission. But apparently we are supposed to believe that that never happened. When the final report is received we would expect that the Minister on being told that the investigations had been concluded that there were some problems and that there was some action being taken might then want to have a closer look at the entire division in which those activities had been taking place that Cabinet might have been informed that the Minister of State Services might have been informed and that the State Services Commissioner might have been informed. But apparently that did not happen because all the time the Minister was wanting us to accept that this was an operational matter not a matter of policy. 
I would like to recall for the House the fact that this is the department that not so long ago offered the advice to its various employees that if they were all to lie in unison then they would never be caught. 
The Government knows this and the flags should have been up. It would appear we now have a number of people in the country who are here quite illegally yet no further action has been taken by the Government. The worst of it is that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove came into the House today and tried to make out that there had been total transparency in this all the way through. Here is the question for him and the next Labour speaker: if this Government has handled this all so well and in a way that is totally honest then why did it take an appeal to the Ombudsman to get the Oughton report released in the first place? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday 13 May was a significant date for National Party members of Parliament. The National Party was formed 72 years ago in 1936. One would think that a party that was 72 years old would know what it was doing and would have a consistent policy. I am privileged to be the education Minister in a Labour-led Government—a Government that has endowed education over the last 8 years as it has never been supported before. We in Labour believe that education is the pathway to maximising the potential of individuals and to building a strong economy and a strong society. We have had an enormous number of initiatives in education during the time of the Labour-led Government. I come back to my opening comment that one would think that the National Party—72 years old yesterday and approaching an election in about 6½ or 7 months’ time—would have a consistent policy. It is a party that is 72 years old. 
Let me share with the House some of the conflicting and confusing positions of the National Party. Let us take the 20 free hours policy which the Labour Government introduced for all 3 and 4-year-olds in New Zealand. It was a revolution in early childhood education. We believe that setting a child as early as possible on an education path that has quality safe early childhood education boosts that child’s chances of a successful education for life. What was the National Party’s position on the 20 free hours policy? It was a very confused position. 
We had Mr Key—”Mr Flip-flop”—addressing a gathering of people in west Auckland which is in the area he represents but of course does not live in. We all know in this House that Mr Key lives in a multimillion-dollar house in Parnell but represents people on the far western fringes of Auckland. In one of the rare visits he made to his electorate he visited a group of parents concerned about early childhood education in Massey and he said that he was for the 20 free hours policy. However later within weeks of that statement he said “Once again the Government’s own documents show the ‘20 hours free’ promise is nothing more than a cruel hoax played out on unsuspecting New Zealand parents.” Mr English his sidekick—although I think not his friend—said that in National they oppose the 20 free hours. I have to say that Katherine Rich who was at that time National’s education spokesperson had a different view altogether and came out in support of the policy. Paula Bennett who sometimes speaks on this issue has of course flip-flopped from one position to another. 
Bulk funding is another very interesting and controversial education issue. Mr Peachey who is a relatively new National MP representing the Tamaki electorate and former principal from the North Shore of Auckland is a great advocate of bulk funding. He said in this House that the abolition of bulk funding was a tragedy. He went on further to attest and witness that he was personally very solidly committed to it. The official National Party spokesperson on education at that time Ms Rich said that bulk funding was not on National’s agenda. Mr English on the other hand said “No ifs no buts and no fighting in school communities over whether to have it. Everyone is going to bulk funding.” Early childhood education is a policy and a programme that was rejected by National then supported by National then rejected then supported again. Just like bulk funding there were two different positions. 
What was the position of members of the women’s caucus of the National Party? 
Jill Pettis 
: They haven’t got one. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I think they have a small one—much smaller than Labour’s of course. National list MP Paula Bennett one of my constituents I think in west Auckland called the 20 free hours policy a cruel hoax and said it was in ruins. Funnily enough 79 percent of eligible children have now signed up for early childhood— 
Paula Bennett 
: Oh that’s not true. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am sorry but I suggest that Paula looks at the stats. Seventy-nine percent of eligible children are now signed up—almost 80 percent of the early childhood education sector is signed up. This is a great success for Labour. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 If Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had not made public the issues surrounding the assistance given to family members by the head of Immigration New Zealand Mary Anne Thompson nothing would have changed. Ministers in this Labour Government were content to have what David Oughton in his report calls an “Unlawful Immigration Decision”—that is at best—and what some people might call corruption in Immigration New Zealand. Ministers were happy to simply cover that up. If TVNZ had not made the issue public and if questions had not been asked in this Parliament would Mary Anne Thompson still be head of Immigration New Zealand? Of course she would. Were Ministers happy for that to be the case? Of course they were. Ministers were prepared to simply hide unlawful decision-making in Immigration New Zealand from the public. 
That is outrageous. Whichever way we look at it it is absolutely outrageous that it takes our media or television—and in this case Television New Zealand—to actually put information in front of the public after a battle with the department to get this information which involved the Ombudsmen. And the information was finally released on Thursday evening just before Easter just before Good Friday. Is that an example of a Government that wants to be open and transparent about this information when it dumps it out on the evening of the Thursday just before Good Friday just before Easter? What hypocrisy! What absolute hypocrisy it is to claim— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I am not accusing any member of that; I am referring to this Government. How else do you view that Mr Assistant Speaker? Oh I cannot bring you into the debate—forgive me. What is so appalling is that if this had not been made public Ministers David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove would have been perfectly happy for nothing to happen. If they could have kept it secret they would have. That is why Ministers are accountable here. Dr Michael Cullen and Clayton Cosgrove have claimed that it is just an employment matter but Ministers are responsible for Government policy and for the outcomes of Government policy. 
In this case the Government policy is that there is a Pacific residual quota available for people from Kiribati and other Pacific nations. That policy has some constraints on it. People have to make an application within a certain time frame and a certain number of places are available. That was the policy. The outcome following the unlawful decision-making within Immigration New Zealand was that people who applied legally within the time frame and people who would have fallen within the 75 places available missed out on those places. Some people who qualified under Government policy missed out on getting residence and people who did not qualify under Government policy got residence. That is clearly the outcome of Government policy being applied wrongly and the Minister is accountable for that. Whatever way Dr Michael Cullen tries to wiggle on this matter—and members know how Dr Cullen tries to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: Slippery! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Is that what they say? I do not care what term is used; whatever way Dr Cullen tries to weasel his way out of this the fact is that Government policy was one set of principles and the outcome following unlawful decisions in Immigration New Zealand was another set of results that were at odds with Government policy and the Minister is accountable for that. It is all spelt out in the Oughton report called I might say  
Review of Apparently Unlawful Immigration Decision 
. That is what David Oughton called it—an unlawful immigration decision. This Oughton report shows not just inappropriate behaviour by Mary Anne Thompson. OK she has stepped down now and there are all sorts of clouds around that; I do not want to address that today. This report shows that a number of senior officials in Immigration New Zealand were involved in this unlawful decision-making producing outcomes that are wrong and not Government policy. The Minister is accountable for that but nothing has happened to these people. Although the names are blanked out in the report it is clear who these people are. And Ministers will be held to account. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. For an awful moment there I feared that our House and the television cameras might capture Dr Lockwood Smith performing something of a wiggle or a wriggle. He went on to refer to the weasel and of course we feared he might strike that pose which is more suited to his leader—that of the weasel. 
Over the last several months the country has witnessed National members frothing up and down the country and their leader and the front bench foaming about the fact that they have already won the benches of Treasury. They are acting like the proverbial magpie waiting until a silver trinket or a golden gleam flows from the policies and the ideas that our party has laid before the country. They wait and they test whether there is a constituency for those ideas and they eagerly gobble them up fly away and regurgitate them as their own ideas thinking that that is the recipe to win the next election. 
What sorts of ideas have National members tried this form of alchemy on? At every opportunity we see Mr John Key endeavouring to cuddle up to my whanaunga from the Maori Party. Of course they are too drowsy to realise that the man’s real agenda and the party’s real agenda is to destroy the Maori seats. For fear of being outdone Rodney Hide in a flight of fancy and a fit of rhetoric that will defy all sorts of psychologists has wandered around our country trying to find suitable Maori candidates to represent the ACT colours in the Maori seats. No doubt of course a number of ne’er-do-wells might be attracted to that cause. Both the National Party and the ACT party say something to an audience in order to capture its attention but deep down they propose to do something quite different in the unlikely event that they capture the benches of Treasury. Of course that remains a fantasy and all the froth and all the shenanigans up and down the country will not trick the country. 
Let us also study what has been the response from those parties in relation to Dr Cullen’s brilliant decision to bring back rail into public ownership. Not only has he presided over a handsome level of investment in terms of ONTRACK and the infrastructure but he wisely concluded that those sunk costs would release better value by the State re-acquiring that asset after it had been rorted and destroyed by the Fay Richwhite cabal—and fortunately some of them faced virtual charges from the Securities Commission. Secondly as Toll has suffered all sorts of financial woes in the sharemarket of Australia Dr Cullen had the opportunity to engage in a set of negotiations and now Toll is firmly in the grip of the Crown’s commercial route. 
The public love the decision to bring back rail into public ownership despite the best efforts of John Key to complain and show that he actually is not possessed of the facts but is just stirring things up. Bill English has been secretly threatening to sell it at the moment National has an opportunity to occupy this side of the House. Of course he will get the superannuation before that happens. So those members have to overcome the difficulty that the public approve of these investments. Has a backward step emerged in terms of international travel since we acquired Air New Zealand? No. It was a fantastic commercial intervention. Are we not going to create a great opportunity for a more efficient transportation system with vessels plying their trade around the coast of Aotearoa and trains travelling smoothly and efficiently serving both the private and the public good? And of course planes largely owned by the State will be trading and moving people around from our country to the next country. 
The reason those members do not like that is that at a deeper level they do not want the public to continue to own these assets. Sooner or later we will have the debate as to whom New Zealand wants to back—those who want to treat the system of Government and our society at large as if it were one large firm or those who see the balance the leadership amidst considerable adversity taken by our side of the House and who realise that firms do serve private purposes very well but that they also must fulfil a public function. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Today I want to concentrate on only one thing and that is the performance of the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe. I want to concentrate on him for a number of reasons the first of which is that he already has form. I say that because as members will have witnessed he is the Minister who week after week in this House got up and defended over and over again the actions of the honourable Taito Phillip Field. David Cunliffe said that nothing was going on and that the Opposition was making something out of nothing. Taito Phillip Field according to the Prime Minister—this is the better one—was guilty only of trying to help his constituents. 
OK; so David Cunliffe has form. We know that from the very fact that Taito Phillip Field is now gone from the Labour Party. He is sitting in the courts in Auckland facing charges of corruption and of perverting the course of justice. David Cunliffe has to answer as to how come the weak lily-livered report that the Government had done—which was done specifically to hide everything in that case—got it off the hook except that finally the police moved. 
Let us move on to this particular case. The case of Mary Anne Thompson getting her family and so on approved for immigration dates back to 2005 so it has been running for a long time. The head of the Department of Labour James Buwalda had an investigation done by David Oughton. 
Here is the first question I want to raise. Has there ever been a Minister in the history of this Parliament who after being told by his or her chief executive: “I have a major issue at the department. I am bringing in an external investigator to investigate corruption.” did not take any further action? I can tell members that every Minister I have ever known including some Ministers on that side of the House would have immediately briefed the Prime Minister and the Minister of State Services if he or she had had that put to them by the chief executive and would have said: “I will let you know the moment we get the findings on this independent investigation.” That is what any Minister would do. One would not leave oneself exposed. One would want to make sure that everybody knew. 
The Prime Minister prides herself on running a no-surprises campaign. That is what she says. Well if I was a Minister—and in David Cunliffe’s case back then a very junior Minister—I would be protecting the old backside. I would be saying: “This is what I have heard from my department and an investigation is going on.” 
The final report was presented in July of 2007 and David Cunliffe was the Minister of Immigration for another 6 months. No one can tell me—I simply will not believe it and neither will New Zealanders—that for another 6 months he sat on the findings of that report said nothing did nothing and told nobody anything. He already has form. We know that and he has proved it yet again. As my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said if it had not been for the tenacity of Television New Zealand journalists digging and digging trying under the Official Information Act but being declined—[ 
Interruption 
] No the department would not release it under the Official Information Act. 
Finally the Ombudsman forced the department’s hand to release the report and when did it release it? Now here is the interest of transparency: it was released on the Thursday night before Easter as Parliament was lifting for 3 weeks and everyone was gone. Does anyone believe that? Seriously again does anyone believe that a report done in July of last year had to be waited for kept and released on the Thursday night before a 3-week adjournment and the Easter break? I do not and I do not think any fair-minded New Zealander does. 
What New Zealanders know is that the Minister sat on this report he tried to hide it he was exposed and he used the argument that he had been transparent and up front. “Oh yes you have!” I say to the Minister. The Minister has been up front since Television New Zealand outed him. The Minister had no choice once Television New Zealand got the Ombudsman’s ruling and it was found out that the Minister knew about the report had kept it and had even handed it on to another Minister who had had it since December and did nothing. Oh finally! 
Then the Government came to the last of the lamest of excuses: it said it is an employment issue. If someone is stealing the coffee or taking ballpoint pens home then those are employment issues; this is about corruption. It goes to the heart of proper Government and those Ministers did nothing. They should go. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 For the few moments I have I want to talk about New Zealand ownership and as I am a member of New Zealand First people will not be surprised about that. We intend to keep on talking about New Zealand ownership and we will be applauding those who have come around to our point of view—that is the Labour Party. The National Party on the other side of the House still has a way to go as far as we are concerned in this regard. We in New Zealand First believe that ownership of the assets of this country does make a difference—it matters who owns them. If that were not so why would people seek to own anything in any part of the world let alone their own house or car or anything like that? I do not think I need to go much further down that track. 
Before I start to talk about what the Chinese are going to do I say upfront that we applaud what the Chinese Government is attempting to do because it is looking after its country and its people. In yesterday’s paper we saw that Rio Tinto Aluminium and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd will increase the price of steel or parts of the steel process to their customers to the tune of about 70 percent and the Chinese have said: “Yeah right!”. China is attempting to buy into Rio Tinto and Broken Hill and is worried that those two companies may indeed become one. We applaud China for that because we believe it is looking after its best interests. We believe that that is what we should be doing in this country because it is a model for success. 
The Chinese clearly have no intention of being at the end of some supply chain. In other words they want a piece of the action upfront. They will not be dictated to on price or anything else by corporations in which they have no say and they are moving to rectify that situation. I saw a report the other day—and this is where we must be very careful in this country—that stated that China was also looking for land around the world including in New Zealand that it could either buy or lease so that again it does not have to pay world prices for products but can have some say in the manufacturing of products and get a supply chain from the paddock to the plate as we like to call it in New Zealand or in Australia’s case from the mine to the end product in China. 
I noticed that a gentleman who came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee—one Dr Grenville—was speaking out about the dangers to Australia of China buying into its companies. Clearly China is looking to protect its interests not Australia’s interests. Dr Grenville says—and quite rightly so—that it is in Australians’ and Australian politicians’ interests to protect Australia. That is our issue in this country. Whom are we acting for? We in this House should in every hour of every day be acting for New Zealanders not for some foreign company and not to advantage some sort of notion of free trade in the world. We—all of us—are elected to act in the interests of New Zealanders and that is what we should be doing. 
It is great that the Labour Government has bought back the railways. Clearly more investment is needed. We understand that and I think that everybody in New Zealand understands it. The Labour Government has said that this purchase will not be a huge income earner. Rather it is part of a transport system and we certainly understand that and applaud that. Likewise we applauded when Air New Zealand was bought back and we believe that that is a model for the railway enterprise going forward. Likewise I have pleaded that the Labour Government protect our dairy industry to the extent that it can and not approve the buying up of smaller dairy companies by the likes of Nutritek and so on and so forth. That industry must be protected as well because it is vital to our future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to be able to participate in the first general debate in the sitting after a parliamentary adjournment because it is always a very interesting time in terms of the political landscape. Looking across the Chamber I ask what the political landscape is in the National Party. It seems very divided I must say. There seems to be division at every single level within National. National does not have much policy but its members seem to be at complete odds with each other over what little policy they have that they are prepared to talk about. Let us look at some of the policy divisions that exist over there in the National Party. John Key seems to be the main swallower of dead rats. He has been swallowing so many dead rats that as Dr Cullen rightly pointed out earlier this week he is starting to resemble a dead rat cemetery as he walks around the country. He is swallowing dead rats while the other National members are saying: “Hang on there Mr Key we’re not so sure we want to just simply regurgitate Labour Party policy because yes although we know all the ideas are over on that side with Labour setting the agenda we don’t think the National Party should necessarily just follow along in its footsteps.” However there is great division on that because John Key just wants to say what he thinks people want to hear. 
There is great disagreement within National. Let us just get into what the detail of that is. John Key and Bill English disagree on a number of aspects. They disagree on the future of rail in this country on the future of broadband in this country on the issue of asset sales and on the issue of the level of what sort of Government debt this country should carry. They disagree on superannuation on how much of it we should have and at what age people should qualify for it. They also disagree on early childhood education. These are not small side issues here in this country of Aotearoa; these are major issues about the future of this country. 
The leader and the deputy leader of the National Party disagree with each other. But it does not finish there. John Key and Tony Ryall disagree on whether the cap should be removed on doctors’ fees. Again it is not a small issue for New Zealanders. This is about how much we will pay when we go to the doctors. John Key agrees with Labour that it should be as low as possible. In fact Labour has halved the fees people pay to go to see their general practitioners these days. John Key thinks that is a pretty good policy but Tony Ryall thinks that doctors should be able to continue to charge as much as they like irrespective of how much the taxpayer puts into subsidising those doctors’ fees. Tony Ryall says that we should just let them charge as much as they like. So John Key and Tony Ryall disagree with each other. 
John Key also disagrees with Wayne Mapp and Tony Ryall on whether market rents should be returned to State housing tenants. Mr Key disagrees with Georgina te Heuheu about abolishing Maori seats. John Key Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith disagree completely about climate change—or do they? It is a pretty hard one to track. John Key once said that he thought it was a hoax but now he says he completely believes in it. However Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith clearly have not got to that point yet. They are climate change deniers. Also John Key disagrees with Allan Peachey on the issue of bulk funding of our schools. 
There is great division and it is at every level. That division is starting to split the National Party apart and it goes like this: there are those people who strongly believe in the National Party philosophy and then there is John Key. I have here a direct quote from John Key: “My goal in leadership is to win the next election and everything I do will be about achieving that.” What sort of leadership is that? John Key is stating that he will do whatever it takes and say whatever he thinks people want to believe in order to get elected. Goodness knows what he would do if the country was foolish enough to give him that opportunity and to actually go about electing him. 
I also want to talk a little more about the division that is there. This is what John Key had to say about rail in May of this year. He said that the rolling stock would “remain state-owned for at least the first term of a National-led Government which is consistent with our SOE policy.” But in March 2008 Bill English said: “We certainly wouldn’t be buying Toll. … We need to look after taxpayers’ interests and the network and the best way to do that is to have a competent operator.” He went on to say that if the purchase was completed under Labour then a National Government would get out of the business as quickly as possible. Possibly what he wanted to say was “before lunchtime”. If it was gone by lunchtime it would complete the sale of infrastructure in which Labour wants to invest for this country. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 We are seeing a Government that is in meltdown. We are seeing a Government that is simply out of touch. That is a little sad because this is my first term and when I sat in this House for the first couple of years in a general debate we got to hear Labour members stand and talk about what was important to New Zealanders. They talked about education health and the economy things that were important to New Zealanders and that made a difference in the day-to-day lives of families. Now of course instead they stand up and squirm and try to find little examples. We should be flattered because instead they get up and talk about us. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: All the time. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: They talk about us all of the time but I suppose when they are trying to hide from their cover-up—so they are hiding the hiding they are doing through their cover-up—it is a simple case of talking about anything except what is actually going on on the day. 
What is going on on the day is actually quite frightening. New Zealanders expect to see a bit of responsibility from their Government. I am going to use a word that is not used often in this House—and I hope Mr Assistant Speaker does not pull me up—but it is called “integrity”. The head of a Government department resigned yesterday. She has been pulled up for corruption and for doing things that under investigation have proven to be quite disgraceful. But let us look at the example that that department has had. This is the department that was told to “lie in unison” by its very own Minister. This is the department that last year dealt with an MP who is now up in court on charges. Those are the examples that this department has had. So when the head of that department was telling her officials to let her family through and was putting out those requests for that corrupt practice to happen can we really blame her when we see the sort of example that has been passed down by Ministers and members? 
We saw the Hon David Cunliffe stand up in this House day after day last year and justify the actions of his then colleague Taito Phillip Field. When day after day he referred to a whitewash of a report and said that that was acceptable how can it be a surprise to this Labour Government that the public now questions its honesty when it comes to the report about Mary Anne Thompson? There can be absolutely no doubt that the public and this Opposition party will continue to ask questions because the public simply no longer believes this Government when it says that a report is being done that an independent inquiry is being held and that someone will be held to account. When no one holds anyone to be responsible how can we see accountability? When a Minister will not stand up and say “This is my department and I take responsibility for what happens within it.” how on earth can we have accountability to taxpayers? 
How on earth can we have accountability to taxpayers when the Minister of Finance will not tell taxpayers how much of their money has been spent on the railways when that number changes day to day and when as recently as yesterday in this House the Minister would not tell taxpayers how much of their money is being spent on buying back the railways? Let us debate whether it is the right thing to do. Bring it on! Let it be a topic for this election campaign. I am more than happy to go there. But let us do it with the facts. Let us do it with the facts and let us do it with some honesty because that is what New Zealanders want and expect. The out-of-touch Labour members should remember that it is not their money. Taxpayers’ money is being squandered daily and they deserve accountability and their Ministers to stand up and take some responsibility. 
That is the example we are being shown throughout the country. We have heard a few reporters say that the phone is off the hook. I say that the phone has fallen into the water and it has gone. They will not find the phone being answered let alone find people willing to listen to them. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of members of the public who are here for the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. When that bill is read it will be a historic and solemn moment in this Parliament’s history—perhaps a bit more historic and solemn than the matters that have been bandied about in this debate so far. It is good to know that Parliament will be getting on to doing its proper job. 
I would like to take up the challenge laid down by the previous member and debate an important issue before the public at the moment and that is climate change. Members will know that another historic bill is before Parliament—it is actually before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment—and that is the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. It is a very very important bill that will allow New Zealand to fulfil its Kyoto Protocol obligations. I take this opportunity to urge members all around the House to express their support for what is very very good legislation. 
I also want to ask National members in particular what position that party takes on climate change. We seem to have lots of different indications from lots of different spokespeople. In October 2007 John Key said what I think is a very responsible thing. He said: “I think you need to balance your economic opportunities with your environmental responsibilities. If you get those things out of whack what you are likely to do is just export a whole lot of industries … On the other side of the coin I think you have got to take climate change seriously.” That is a responsible statement that tries to reflect the policy being striven for in the emissions trading legislation and I hope that the National Party will stick to that position. 
Unfortunately we have had inconsistent statements even from Mr Key himself. In May 2005 he said that Kyoto “is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so … even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it …”. That is a worrying inconsistency. We really need to see consistency from members opposite on this important issue—like the responsible position taken by Mr Key’s deputy when he said in February 2007: “we are open to the science …”. That is very similar to the position taken by Nick Smith. He has taken a responsible public stance on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which I hope members opposite will follow. 
But we heard Maurice Williamson speaking earlier in this debate in praise of Television One and its investigative abilities. I would like to join him in doing that because we owe Television One for that famous interview where Maurice Williamson was asked: “I understand that you said to the AA conference that you didn’t believe [climate change] was happening.” Williamson responded: “That’s not true. What I said at the AA conference is I wasn’t going to comment on any other member’s policy. I was there to talk about roading.” Television One asked: “Do you believe in climate change?”. Williamson replied: “I believe in the National Party’s policy.” Television One then asked: “But do you yourself believe in it?”. The reply was “I believe in the National Party’s policy”— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Whatever that is! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Paul Swain makes a good point. What is the National Party’s policy on climate change in general? What is its policy on this emissions trading legislation in particular? The public has a right to know and it is time we heard. 
Members will remember that other famous interview by Television One with Lockwood Smith who said: “I don’t know what this is about. My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “What I’m asking you is whether you believe in global warming.” The reply: “My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “Lockwood I’m asking you whether you believe in global warming.” Lockwood Smith: “I’m telling you what my answer is.” Television One: “What is it?”. Lockwood Smith: “That I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Do you believe in global warming?”. Lockwood Smith: “I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Why can’t you tell us yes or no?”. Lockwood Smith: “Because the important thing is what I support.” 
When John Key was asked about this apparent conflict he said: “Well I mean in the case of Maurice and Lockwood I mean they they simply are they look they nat they back the National Party position which is on climate change. Since I’ve been the leader I’ve made it very clear that National is going to take climate change seriously. We’ve got a target of reducing our emissions by 50 percent by 2050. We’ll be backing the emissions trading scheme albeit that the system is complex and that; and we’ll need to take a good look at it. We back Kyoto. So ah you know we’re bound by collective responsibility and I think in that regard Lockwood and Maurice have made that quite clear; and that’s totally fine.” Well let us hope that is the position and that the National Party will support this important legislation. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.