Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Last Tuesday, in response to a question from Te Ururoa Flavell about the policy of neglect that was revealed in New Zealand Living Standards 2004: The Report, the Minister for Social Development and Employment admitted to an astonishing fact. Mr Benson-Pope announced in this House: “This Government is not standing by and not supporting people in areas of need.” This Government will not stand by the approximately one-quarter of all New Zealanders who face some degree of hardship. This Government will not support people in the areas of need that are particularly desperate for Māori, Pacific, and sole-parent beneficiary families. Although this Government likes to boast that it has taken people off the domestic purposes benefit or the dole, it turns a blind eye to those who are left behind to experience a level of social disadvantage that my colleague Tariana Turia has described as constituting a national emergency.

It is interesting that Charles Chauvel, who has just given his maiden statement, spoke about the achievements of the Government, yet last week’s report Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention described the dire circumstances for children and adults living in lone parent or workless families in a state of persistent poverty. The report picked up on Unicef’s advice that strategies to reduce child abuse will not be successful if they do not address the question of economic poverty. We cannot address risk factors in isolation. A concerted effort is required if we are ever to address the national emergency of poverty. Dr Nikki Turner of the Child Poverty Action Group has described the greatest impact and cost of deprivation as being the shocking health status of our children. She has said: “It is shameful to us that poverty has been allowed to deepen over the course of an economic boom that has seen companies making record profits. The people who suffer the greatest poverty in New Zealand are our children with 38 percent in hardship categories,”. This is happening under a Government that talks about strong families, healthy, confident kids, and safe communities. I kid members not.

In the Budget speech that Dr Cullen delivered just over 2 months ago, he talked about ensuring that families young and old were able to secure the opportunity to reach their full potential. He used the phrase: “transformation, underpinned by the values of fairness, opportunity, and security.” How can it be fair that Māori and Pacific peoples are overrepresented amongst those with an education and labour market disadvantage? What are the other factors operating outside of social and material deprivation that mean Māori women are more than twice as likely as non-Māori women to suffer from anxiety and from depressive and substance abuse disorders? Is racism fair? What opportunity has been denied to children in severe and significant hardship that has seen the proportion of such children rise from 18 percent to 26 percent since 2000? What opportunity cost is demonstrated by the fact that homeownership has dropped by 12 percent overall and by 21 percent for those with incomes under $40,000 per year? What security can Māori children and families have when almost half of all Māori children will miss out on the new in-work payment because their parents are on benefits? That additional $60 per week could maybe make the difference between insecurity and survival. It is all about-face. The in-work payment turns working families into beneficiaries while depriving welfare families of support they so desperately need. It is back to front. The scheme does not get to the children who need it most and instead expands our welfare State by creating working families as the new beneficiaries of the State.

All this does is tighten the apron strings to a nanny State even further. Political analyst Colin James has put this new phenomenon of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer into the context of a global gap, which he describes as: “pervasive and unyielding, dividing the struggling bulk of the population from the competitive elite.” If we are to foot it on the international stage, we must take the whole nation along, not just privilege the elite and leave the struggling bulk to suffer more. Our future will be a predominantly brown one. If we are to achieve a strong, healthy workforce in order to drive our collective economic advancement, we need to make sufficient investment right now.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : In taking this call I want to comment on Mr Sharples’ contribution to the debate, and acknowledge the importance of providing more opportunity for all New Zealanders and of giving everyone the opportunity to succeed and do well. But let us make sure that when a person does well, it is not at the expense of others or the integrity of the New Zealand way of life. That is why, throughout this debate, the National Opposition has been asking members opposite why they are covering up for Taito Phillip Field. What does Mr Taito Phillip Field have on members of the Labour front bench that every single one of them is prepared to be complicit with the activities he has been doing that have been exposed in the Ingram report and in other matters associated with that? It goes to the heart of the integrity of this place that members of Parliament, in respect of their constituent responsibilities and also their responsibilities as Ministers of the Crown, behave in a way that is beyond reproach. When it comes to the behaviour of Mr Field, I am certain that those members opposite cannot defend what has gone on.

It is worth reminding members of the House what level this cover-up goes to. In the case of the Thai tiler being employed at below-market rates in Samoa with the full expectation that the Minister would secure the tiler’s residence in New Zealand, the Prime Minister immediately reacted by saying there was no truth to it whatsoever and that nothing needed to happen. That was what she said, immediately. It was only after more evidence came to light—of Mr Field having some strange arrangements with some tenants, and with more accusations that people had provided free painting and other free work on his property in Samoa—that the Prime Minister finally yielded to Opposition calls for an independent inquiry into Mr Field’s behaviour. The Prime Minister did everything possible to avoid doing that. In the end, she got Dr Ingram QC to undertake a report, but she told the nation that it was not an important matter and that it would be over and done with in 9 days. She was absolutely determined to cover it up. Well, of course, anybody who had read the facts of the situation—who had read what immigration consultants had said and what the man who brought the tiler to Mr Field’s office had said—knew that this went way beyond anything that could be investigated in 9 days. So we have ended up with a very long report from Ingram, and, frankly, with many of the important questions not answered. They were not answered because the Ingram inquiry did not have the power to compel a number of witnesses to appear.

Further concerns were raised by the Ingram report, particularly in relation to the involvement of three other Cabinet Ministers. We know that when the tiler for whom Field had said he would get residence was working in Samoa, other Labour Cabinet Ministers went to Field’s property in Samoa. It is beyond belief that those Ministers did not talk to the tiler when they were visiting the Field mansion in Samoa. The Prime Minister has been so keen to cover this up further because this scandal, this corruption, is now swirling not only around Field but also around Damien O’Connor, who was the Minister of Immigration at that time.

Damien O’Connor is very close to the Prime Minister; they have holidayed together. She has invested a lot of her personal capital in O’Connor, and that is why she, together with her front-bench colleagues, is so determined to block any criticism of Field, the Ingram inquiry, and O’Connor. It is all about not only her efforts to protect herself and to stop any inquiry into or public scrutiny of Field’s behaviour in this case but also her determination to deflect attention away from the involvement of O’Connor, the Minister of Immigration at the time, in this case.

It is clear from the evidence provided to the Ingram inquiry that Minister O’Connor’s closest political adviser was told that the tiler and others were working on that property in Samoa and that there were suggestions they were working for next to nothing on the understanding they would get residence in New Zealand. We know that to be the case, because a senior public servant at the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa made a file note that he had told the Minister’s closest political adviser—his senior public servant—of those concerns. He made a note that the Minister’s senior public servant said: “Damien knew”. That is what the note said. The Minister’s closest political adviser told an unbiased, impartial public servant that the Minister knew about the accusations about those tilers, those Thai workers, at the time he made his decision to give the Thai tiler residence in New Zealand. The Minister knew. We know that, because an impartial public servant wrote a file note to say that the Minister’s closest political adviser had told him that O’Connor knew when he made that decision. That is the reason why the Prime Minister is determined to heap as much odium as possible on Field; it is to protect her other Ministers who went to Samoa. We know that Minister Goff went to the tiler’s house, we know that Minister O’Connor went to the tiler’s house, and we know that Minister Field was there. With three Ministers there, it is impossible to accept that they did not talk to the tiler. It is an impossibility that they did not discuss the tiler’s residential status in New Zealand.

What has been even more complicated in this case is the fact that many of the key witnesses for the provision of information were unable to appear before the Ingram inquiry, because they feared legal action against them for whatever they said. That is why the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith stood up in this Parliament and asked the Prime Minister whether she would provide a forum whereby people could come forward and tell their stories and receive privilege. The Prime Minister said nothing.

That is, again, part of her cover-up in this Field case. What does Taito Phillip Field have on the Labour Party front bench that they all are standing so firm, in light of the widespread public view of the corruption that has gone on in this case? Surely the Labour people who are not on the front bench—those on the middle benches and in Cabinet—must know that this stench of corruption is all-pervading. New Zealanders want to know why there has been a cover-up. Why is the Government preventing a select committee inquiry into this case? Why is Labour not saying that a select committee, or the Privileges Committee, or some part of the authority of this House can have a look at the Field case?

Very serious issues have been raised not only in the Ingram inquiry but from scrutiny of this case. There is a stench of corruption around this Government. Why are Field and the front bench of the Labour Government so determined to avoid scrutiny of the behaviour of Minister O’Connor, Minister Goff, and Minister Field in this case?

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I am pleased to speak in this appropriation bill debate. In case people are wondering just what the subject of the House’s attention is this evening, it is, in fact, the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill debate. I am pleased to speak on the bill for a number of reasons. First of all, this 2006-07 set of estimates—and the Budget that attaches to it, of course—is the continuation of the economic transformation that has been at the heart of this Labour-led Government’s policy agenda. It lays down the groundwork for 2006-07 and beyond for increasing economic prosperity and increasing care for those who are unable to look after themselves, for whatever reason, for whatever period of time. So we look forward to the enactment and rolling out of the policies behind the Budget.

It is the point about policy that I wish to speak to in particular, because we are at a loss to discern the policy that is coming out of the National Party. National recently had an annual conference. There were so many speeches, particularly from the front bench, and so few ideas. There was so little in the way of policy, and so little in the way of anything that might grasp this country’s imagination and make it look like the people had a choice. At that National Party conference there was the usual litany of trivia that National continues to serve up as policy. We have this vacuum where policy ought to be, if we are to live in a robust democracy.

So I was waiting with bated breath for the next speech from the leader, Dr Don Brash, and we got a speech about immigration. I thought that would be interesting, and that perhaps it would be the start of a policy platform from the National Opposition. But, no, I was disappointed, again. In fact, what we got would have been funny, if it were not so serious. We got gems like the following. When the leader of the National Party was asked to expand on his speech, he said in an interview: “What I was saying was, look, by all means let’s enrich our culture by having people who have different traditions of music and cuisine and dance, and so on. And that’s good, and I welcome that.” As I said, this would be laughable if it were not so desperately serious. What we have here is some idea of tolerance of migrant groups for the purposes of entertaining us, amusing us, and perhaps even extending our culinary repertoire. But if we want them to engage in our society to the extent of writing letters of protest about something in that society, then no, they are not allowed, they are not permitted to be full participating members of our democracy. We will welcome them as long as we can wear them as badges and can trot them out on formal occasions to show how rich and ethnically diverse we are.

But we require immigrants to have what are now called “bedrock values”. The term used to be “mainstream”; now it is “bedrock”. I look forward to the next iteration, whatever it might be. I look forward to the next epithet that the speech-writers come up with for Dr Brash. Once he had been probed on this issue, it was perfectly clear that there was no immigration policy. There was nothing except what was left to one’s imagination. Are we meant, then, to have a screening programme—a screening programme on application, a screening programme on entry to the country, a screening programme on application for citizenship that asks: “Do you sign up to all those bedrock values that Dr Brash outlined: religious freedom, the rule of law, and the equality of sexes before the law?” I think that was about the extent of the list, actually; that was the best he could do in identifying citizenship.

This is a tragedy. It would be good if we were able to debate policy in this House, but we are left with the National Opposition raising, day after day, points of trivia that the public have no interest in, such as the number of people Michael Cullen goes to dinner with, and such issues. If Dr Brash truly wants to lead this country—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He does.

MARYAN STREET:—and I am assured by members opposite that he does—then I suggest that this country is in desperate trouble. If that is the calibre of the Opposition leader, then it is no wonder that those members are looking for another.

It seems to me that the question of immigration policy goes to the heart of economic transformation and economic development in this country. More than that, if the Leader of the Opposition had done any reading at all that might have informed a reasonable policy debate—instead of putting up meaningless epithets such as “bedrock values”—and done any kind of analysis, he would have seen that classical pluralism makes it very clear that stable societies come out of the existence of diversity. The existence of diversity—not simply flag waving and badge wearing—comes about because people of different interests each achieve something they need out of their participation. That is classical pluralism. It has been around since 1952. It is not hard to look it up. It has been there for a long time. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted any kind of academic framework or any kind of analysis on which to base a policy, he could have asked me for a bibliography to start with. Stable societies are born out of the participation and recognition of difference. This is not about having migrants come to this country who look like us and who are like us.

While I am on that note, I finish by saying that I have never understood what the National Party means by “one law for all”. I have understood that one rule of law applies in this country, and applies to everybody. It applies to migrants and citizens. It applies to anybody, and anybody who infringes it is treated in the same way by the appropriate authorities. So that nonsense—that cliché about one law for all—is as meaningless as “bedrock values”. I feel desperately sorry for the Opposition. I would love to engage in a proper debate about things such as immigration, but there is nothing to debate because nothing is coming out of that Opposition.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind Mr Copeland that he has a 5-minute address. The bell will go at 4 minutes for a 1-minute warning.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I would like to follow for a few brief seconds the theme of the previous speaker and the debate about what it means to be a bedrock Kiwi, a mainstream Kiwi, or whatever. Basically, I suggest to the House that maybe we could go beyond all the definitions that have been put up in this debate and simply look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is wrong with that document? That document goes back to the mid-1940s.

I should make it very clear that United Future is a pro-immigration party. We are a pro - population growth party. Therefore, we want to see new immigrants come here. In fact, the nation has no choice, given the net outflow we have seen in recent years, but to have new immigrants come in. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is tremendously important, and we want people to say, as it were, that they adhere to that list of rights and values.

There is one important value in that document that is not in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that I have not heard mentioned in any debate in this House. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes not only freedom of religion but also the freedom to change one’s religion. That very right is the source of a lot of conflict in the world today. When we think about it, we understand that we do not have genuine freedom of religion unless we also have the ability to change our religion without the force of the law coming down on us for doing so, which is the case in many nations of this world today. So I want to make that point. Why do we not just get people to sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to live by that standard? I think these problems would then disappear pretty quickly.

I want, though, to devote most of my speech to expressing United Future’s continued great unease with the growth in Government expenditure and the level of bureaucracy that has resulted. I live here in Wellington, and we see the results all around us in brand new buildings—brand new buildings to house Government departments. We have one by Bowen House for the Ministry of Health; we have a new building just down the road for the Ministry of Defence; we have a new building on the wharf for Statistics New Zealand. With that, if we look at the situations vacant section of the Dominion Post on the weekend, we see entire pages—and I am not kidding—devoted to the great big advertisements of Government departments that are looking for policy analysts.

Now, policy analysts are important people. But, really, if we are looking at economic transformation, I think the Government is on the wrong track in thinking we will get there by employing an ever-increasing number of policy analysts. It takes me back to the days of the early 1980s, before the Lange Government came in, when we had the phrase “paralysis by analysis”. If we take that to its logical conclusion and put more and more analysts into the situation, we will eventually get paralysis, because analysts are not actually built to get things done and to move things forward. We are just swelling the bureaucracy at the public’s expense when we could actually be using that money in better ways. A model that is sometimes put before us in the House is that of the British Labour Government. I advise the House that the British Finance Minister, Gordon Brown, has put forward specific goals on the reduction of Government expenditure and of the growing bureaucracy in that nation—quite specific goals, with targets in mind, to reduce the bureaucracy. He wants to carve Stg£20 billion out of back-line—what we might call back office—activity in the bureaucracy and put Stg£20 billion into the delivery of front-line Government services, and he has a target to do that by the end of 2008. Right now, to the end of March 2006, he has already achieved a saving of Stg£9.8 billion.

I say to the Government that we should do the same here. We should set out deliberately on a course to reduce the bureaucracy and to get rid of back-office activity, which is really a very poor utilisation of scarce resources. By all means let us have good front-end delivery of public services. New Zealanders want that. In turning away, by the narrowest of margins, from tax cuts in the 2005 election, they basically said that they wanted to stick with good core public services. They absolutely want good front-line delivery, but I do not think for a moment that New Zealanders actually voted to see a swelling bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is getting out of hand under this Government, and there is no precise plan to rein it in. I believe that it is about time the Government got real and set out a plan to rein it in.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : One of the most important issues in relation to a confidence vote—even more important, I have to say to the new member Maryan Street, than the issue of policy—is the basic issue of trust. What Parliament has seen is the worst case of corruption—

Hon Rick Barker: This is rich coming from a member who was convicted by the High Court of New Zealand—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Barker wants to interject. The first time I met Mr Barker he was a union official. He used to stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Mr Barker, as a member of the Labour Party, is sitting there in shame because his party has been involved in the most corrupt activity I have seen in my 17 years in Parliament. Let us be clear about what has happened.

Hon Rick Barker: Nick Smith makes it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can Mr Barker tell me which part I have made up? Is it the part where Mr Field had his house painted for doing immigration favours? Does Mr Barker think that that is acceptable conduct by an MP?

Hon Rick Barker: The High Court did not believe Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Barker does not want to respond to that. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not have to raise a point of order, because I will do it myself. I say to the member on my right that I would like him to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3. I remind him that interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable, and not a running commentary. If the member wants to make a running commentary he can take the next call and reply.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Such is the stench of corruption in the Government that Ministers like Rick Barker will shout members down rather than engage in debate about the improper conduct he and his ministerial colleagues are covering up in respect of Phillip Field.

I remind Mr Barker and the members opposite who rightly have their heads down in shame that they made a huge deal of Mr Tuku Morgan’s $85 pair of underwear. I am sure members remember that debate. They will remember the independent inquiries, the large sums of money that were spent in relation to Mr Tuku Morgan, and the grilling that took place in select committees, Parliament, and independent inquiries. My question to Labour members is this. If it is good enough to have a proper independent inquiry in respect of an $85 pair of underwear, as was Labour’s view in 1997, why does that not apply when a Minister of the Crown receives benefits of over $100,000 and profits from the sale of a constituent’s property that he bought and sold through his work as an electorate MP? Why, when in not one, two, or three but six different immigration cases Mr Phillip Field received personal benefits as a consequence of getting work permits through the Minister of Immigration, do Labour members turn a blind eye to behaviour that is no less than corruption?

It was interesting to listen to Maryan Street, a former president of the Labour Party. Are the values of the Labour Party founded on standing up for the oppressed, underpaid, and exploited? Have those values become so corrupted by power that the Labour Party will stand by silently and allow a member of the House to take private benefit from his work as a member of Parliament?

I find it absolutely extraordinary that Parliamentary Service had to tell Mr Field that he needed to put a sign in his electorate office stating that services do not need to be paid for. What sort of insult is that? I ask Mr Barnett what sort of state of affairs we have when we need to put in our electorate office a sign stating that constituents do not need to pay for services. I ask Mr Barnett whether Parliamentary Service has written to him, to Steve Chadwick, or to Mr David Parker stating that they need a sign in their electorate offices stating that they are not allowed to accept payment for, and that they do not charge for, their services. I am sure that that is not the way things operate in the case of Mr Barnett, Mr Parker, and Ms Chadwick. So why do those members tolerate and cover up the activities of a fellow member of Parliament for whom Parliamentary Service believes such a sign is necessary? What does that say about the culture of the Labour Government?

We have heard day after day questions from my colleague Lockwood Smith to the Minister of Immigration. Those questions have been straightforward. He has basically asked why, following case after case of overstayers being turned down, not once or twice but over and over again, and applying to appeal authorities, suddenly the Government had a change of heart and allowed those persons to stay in New Zealand. Has Parliament received a single straight answer? I ask Dr Smith whether we are any wiser after 13 questions asking why the then Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, granted work permits for those individuals.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason we have not had an answer is that the truth is incredibly compromising for the Government. The truth is that the only reason those persons were allowed to stay in New Zealand—why they were not deported—is that corrupt favours had been provided to Mr Phillip Field. That is the reason why those persons were granted work permits, but members opposite will not give a straight answer to questions about this matter. What is most concerning in all of this is the attitude of Prime Minister Helen Clark.

I was interested to hear Maryan Street say that she could not understand—could not fathom—what National meant in saying “one law for all”. Let me explain to that former Labour Party president what National means by “one law for all”. It means this. If there is corrupt activity by a member of Parliament, who is personally profiting as a consequence of the favours they spread out for their particular personal benefit, then he or she should have to front up like everybody else. It is a double standard of the Labour Government that in the very week Phillip Field is found by the Ingram inquiry to have paid substandard slave rates of labour to vulnerable Thai workers to paint his own houses, the Labour Government has the audacity to introduce a bill to the House that states that contract workers must be paid a minimum wage.

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a bit rich.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As my colleague Chris Auchinvole says, it is a bit rich.

What we have from this Government is the shameful sweeping under the carpet of the most serious corruption we have had by a member of Parliament in the modern history of this Parliament of ours. I challenge the next Labour member to say either that our 90-year-old Labour Party is rotten to the core or that there is someone in the Labour Party who is prepared to stand up for some basic standards of decency and see Phillip Field held to account for his corrupt behaviour.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I will comment briefly on the previous speech, which was made by a member of Parliament who has yet to stand up in this House and tell us what he was doing when he was taken to court, and what he was doing for the family that he was supposed to be representing. I have not heard Dr Nick Smith explain why the judge did not agree with him. We have yet to hear it. So we will take his speech with a grain of salt, because it has no standing in terms of morality when it comes from a member like that. He is the only person I can recall in my time in Parliament who has actually been found guilty in the courts of a very serious offence—and he is standing up here giving us a moral lecture about standards!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Standing up for constituents.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: He was standing up for something that he claims was right, but that point was not agreed to by the judge. The judges in this country, thank goodness, are independent of politics—and long may that last.

We have heard from members opposite who have stood up and represented National in this debate on the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill. Some have a spokesperson’s role, as Dr Nick Smith has, on something—one would not know from listening to the member tonight what it is, but from a brief discussion with my benchmate I think it is something to do with conservation and energy, or something like that. But what did we hear about that matter? In a debate where the Opposition is required to come in and put the Government to test, we heard nothing but a moral lecture from a man who got done in the courts for contempt. So that member’s speech is worthless, because it came from somebody who has a record in the courts that no other member of this House will ever come near.

I want to talk a little about the estimates and the Appropriation Bill, because it will make the Opposition sick. It will make them angry to hear what this Government has done. The Opposition hates the fact that every single cent of the moneys that are collected by road-user chargers, petrol tax, and other taxes on motorists is going into solving the transport problems that the previous National Government ignored for 9 years. Worse than ignoring them, National sent the country backwards into a downward economic spiral. Is it a moral thing for a Government to do to send the provinces of New Zealand on a downward spiral because it has failed to do its job? That National Government put people into the unemployment queues. It made them suffer under poverty.

Anne Tolley: That’s a bit rich coming from Labour.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Anne Tolley should know about that. She is supposed to represent the East Coast, which is a place that this Government put enormous amounts of money into for fixing up roading infrastructure, and a place with housing that was shameful.

We heard in question time the audacity of members of the National Party questioning this Government about housing. I went around rural New Zealand when National was in power and saw families living in worse conditions than anybody could imagine in this century, all because of the National Party’s neglect of a basic thing like housing. People were living in sheds—if they were lucky—under canvas, and in cold, wet, damp, and health-threatening situations. Now we do not hear anything from the National Party about those days and what they did about it, which was nothing.

I heard the speech from the spokesperson on health, Tony Ryall, who talks like a 45 record stuck on 33 whenever he gets up in the House because he thinks people are thick and cannot understand him unless he speaks at half speed. Such arrogance I have never heard. Has he recognised the money that has gone into health, which makes sure that people in my community—a community of low-income people, in the main—can afford to go to the doctor and get their prescriptions filled?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Let’s hear you support Taito, Mark.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Those are very basic things—moral things that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has no concept of. He will stand up and bleat, but he will not acknowledge this Budget and what it has done for primary health care.

In Counties Manukau—which you, Mr Assistant Speaker, will be very familiar with—we have fewer people presenting at the hospitals this year, because they are not sick. Nor are their children, because they are getting a doctor’s visit, a prescription, and proper primary health care. Do we hear about that from the National Party? No, what we get is a lecture on morality from people who would not know morals if they fell over them. A worse Government we have never had as in 1990-99, when the last National Government watched New Zealander after New Zealander being pushed into poverty. National members sold the State houses and said: “We will have mass unemployment because it suits our economic theories.”

We get a little tired on this side of the House of hearing moral arguments from members who, if they had an electorate office and saw constituents, would know better. I know that a great many of the constituents who come to me—about 70 percent of them—come for help on immigration matters. And—whoa!—many of them are actually here illegally. That might come as a surprise to National Party MPs who have never done proper electorate work. They are too busy swanning around the corporate sector, enjoying the wine and food, but do they actually have real people coming through their doors with real problems? And, unlike the National Party, I do not ring up border control and say: “Come and get them and take them out.”, which is what the secretaries in the National Party’s offices are told to do. No, we look at each case one by one and say: “You have a case and we’ll advocate for you.”, or: “You haven’t got a case and we’ll help you to exit this country.” That is what members on this side of the House do on a weekly basis.

But for some of the members over there it is a real rarity even to visit their electorates, because they do not live in them. Oh no, John Key has to get in that big car with the signs painted on the side—paid for by the taxpayer—and drive out to his electorate from time to time so that they will know he has come to visit from time to time. We heard Bill English say that only twice in a year had he ever had anybody come in for help. Well, that is probably because he visits his electorate only twice a year. He lives here in Wellington, so what would he know about electorate work and what constituents’ needs are?

I know about constituents and their needs, because I have a multicultural electorate with a great many people who need help with immigration, and I gladly help them—whether or not they have done things wrong in the past. I have a multicultural electorate where a great many people eventually turn to their MP so we can take those cases to the immigration authorities and, as a last resort, to the Minister, if need be. But National Party people do not know anything about that.

The attitude of the National Party is espoused by its leader in his speech about immigration. They all follow him and they all agree with him. He is number one. He is going to be there forever. Nobody is ever going to challenge him, they say. He says: “We should not welcome those who want to live here but who reject core aspects of the country’s culture.” What else does he say? He says: “The National Party wants a country where people, men and women, are treated the same, and where religious freedom is practised.” What about the million-dollar assistance National received from the Exclusive Brethren? Did Dr Brash forget about that when he was interviewed on National Radio on Friday?

No, what that speech really means is, as Dr Brash said: “We like them when they come here, when they enrich our culture with people who have different traditions of music, cuisine, and dance.” So immigrants can come here and work in the Chinese restaurants or the Viet Namese restaurants, and all the wonderful restaurants that Dr Brash wants them to come and work in, and they can shake their booty and do a bit of dancing. He says that we like that bit, and that we really enjoy the music—but he does not want to let them come here and believe in their own religions or let them think that they can bring their culture with them. Oh no!

If the National Party had its way, my father would have been told to keep his culture where it belonged, in Samoa, and not to think he could bring it here. That is why members of the National Party were sitting in the grandstands in 1981, cheering the Springboks versus the All Blacks—and we all remember the deputy leader, Mr Brownlee, doing that—while the other members of the House were outside, saying: “We reject that part of New Zealand culture.” We would have been accused of treason by Dr Brash for doing that, if we happened to be immigrants.

Anne Tolley: That’s pathetic.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Oh, Anne Tolley says that is pathetic. She should read her leader’s speech. It is pathetic; it is the most pathetic load of nonsense I have heard from a person who is supposed to have been educated in this country to high levels. Shame on National Party members who say: “Come here, and work in the restaurants, shake your bottom and do a bit of dancing, but don’t bring your culture, your language, and your beliefs with you, because you’re not welcome.” That is National; not us.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : I have here my copy of the Ingram report. Members will see that it is pretty dog-eared. They will know from the questions I have asked in the last couple of weeks that I have read this report in some detail, and I have to say that the smell of corruption oozes out of every second page.

Mark Gosche, who has just finished speaking, did not say one word in support of Taito Phillip Field—not one word. One would have thought that somebody from the Labour side of the House would stand up and say: “Taito Phillip Field may have made a mistake, but I support all he did.” After all, those members are fellow unionists; Taito Phillip Field was a union organiser. But not one of them did that. Look at those Labour members over there! They are starting to think that their leader, Helen Clark, has made a mistake in embracing Phillip Field. We know they are starting to discuss the issue among themselves, saying: “Why the hell are we having to cope with all this crap when Helen Clark has embraced this guy, who we know has done real wrong?”. Look at them, over there! All their heads are buried. I have not seen such a bunch. Every time I ask questions in Parliament each day, the heads of Helen Clark and Phil Goff go lower and lower, under their desks.

Chris Auchinvole: Paul Swain?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Paul Swain tries to disappear. They all know that what Taito Phillip Field was doing was corrupt.

The issue is, though, to what extent other Ministers were involved in all of this. We know that one of the key players in it all—where the whistle was blown initially—was a Thai overstayer called Sunan Siriwan. His activities could not be covered up, because they had been made public. What we saw was that on 17 May 2005 the Minister had a meeting with Taito Phillip Field about Mr Siriwan’s case. The next day Taito Phillip Field wrote to the Minister, laying out the agreements they had reached. Of course, the Minister claims that no agreements were reached. But Taito Phillip Field said they had reached agreements, and his wife, Mrs Field, flashed that letter around in Samoa on 9 June, New Zealand time. The general manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa immediately emailed the immigration intelligence unit here in Wellington to tell it what was going on.

Labour members are trying to expect the New Zealand public to believe that the Immigration Service in Wellington had been told what was going on with those people who were working for Phillip Field in Samoa, yet the Immigration Service did not tell the Minister what was going on. The Minister did not make a decision about Mr Siriwan until 17 June, well after the time his department had been emailed from Apia, Samoa to tell it what was going on. Labour members opposite expect New Zealanders to believe that the Immigration Service just sat on this information and did not tell its Minister. The department had the information for 8 days before the Minister made his decision, and it expects this House to believe, and the people of New Zealand to believe, that it just sat on the information and did not tell the Minister.

It is simply inconceivable that the head office of the New Zealand Immigration Service had the information about the conflict of interest, about Mr Siriwan working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa, and did not tell its Minister when it prepared briefing notes for him on 16 June. I was a Minister for 9 years. There is no way the staff from the Minister’s department would not have said to a Minister: “There’s stuff you need to know. There’s information you need to know.” They would have told their Minister. Yet the Minister still made a decision to issue visas to Sunan Siriwan, when he had to have known he was working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa.

We have heard in this House, and anyone who has read the Ingram report will know, that there are extraordinary cases involving not just Mr Siriwan but Mr Chaikhunpol, Ms Ngaosri, Mr Nakhen, and Mr Kaewbabpha—none of whom, apart from Mr Chaikhunpol, would talk to the Ingram inquiry. They could cover up because what they were up to was not public knowledge. There is a serious issue buried in this report, on conflicts of interest that Mr Ingram could not uncover. It is the issue of who painted Taito Phillip Field’s house at 51 Church Street, Ōtāhuhu in 2004. I suggest members read what Noel Ingram had to say about that. What happened was that Taito Phillip Field’s little helper, Ms Thaivichit, who seemed to help him with all his painting escapades, told Noel Ingram that a person called Mr Phimpadcha painted the interior of Taito Phillip Field’s house in 2004 and that he got $400 for doing it. The only problem is that Noel Ingram proved he did not do it. So Ms Thaivichit and Mr Phimpadcha lied about who painted the interior of the house.

So what did Phillip Field say about who painted the interior of the house? He gave Noel Ingram several versions of who might have done it. Do members know what Taito Phillip Field finally said to Noel Ingram? He said he thought he may have been involved in doing it. I am not surprised if someone cannot remember when he or she might have started painting a house—whether it was in the middle of July last year, whether it was at the beginning of July last year, or whether it was at the end of July last year. I can understand someone getting confused about when he or she started doing it, but do members believe that anyone, no matter how dimwitted, could forget whether he or she painted the entire interior of a house? That is what Taito Phillip Field expected Noel Ingram to believe. Do members know what Noel Ingram said? He said: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” That is code for Noel Ingram saying that Phillip Field lied to him. Those Labour members opposite know it. They know that corruption was going on.

The question of who painted that house in 2004 is crucial in terms of the conflict of interest issue, because if it was painted by Mr Chaikhunpol—which Dr Ingram could not prove, yet it is highly probable—then Taito Phillip Field was making representations for Mr Chaikhunpol’s permanent residence at that very time. Shortly after that interior painting was done, permanent residence was granted to Mr Chaikhunpol. A clear conflict of interest was covered up. A meeting involving Phillip Field and designed to cover up that issue was held on 2 October 2005. That is why there must be a further inquiry into this whole business. There are all sorts of other issues, as well. This report does not get into half of what Taito Phillip Field was up to. Even if we take just what Noel Ingram uncovered himself, we see that there are issues about which he says, in as many words, he does not believe what Phillip Field said to him. He said that Ms Thaivichit, Mr and Mrs Field’s dear friend who organised a lot of the painting stuff, lied to him.

There is clear evidence of corruption and clear evidence of a cover-up over critically important issues. That is why the National Opposition believes that, for the integrity of this Parliament to be upheld, there must be a further committee inquiry into what went on. It smells.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member Heather Roy that she has 5 minutes. The bell will go at 4 minutes, with a 1-minute warning.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : It is hard to understand and comprehend exactly what could have brought anyone to inflict the type of violence on the Kāhui twins that caused their brutal, and what must have been incredibly painful, deaths. It is hard not to think, at least in passing, that those beautiful baby boys are probably better off dead than having to endure a lifetime of violence and abuse from a seriously dysfunctional family. The list just seems to go on and on: James Whakaruru, “Lillybing”, Coral-Ellen Burrows, and the Kāhui twins. It is time that New Zealanders said “enough”.

There is nothing good to be said about the Kāhui twins’ case, but it has allowed New Zealanders to have a discussion not just about family violence and child abuse but also about welfare dependency. For far too long now it has been decided—usually, traditionally, by the left—that poverty is the problem. A diagnosis of poverty seems to have been made for every single terrible case we have heard about. But if poverty was the problem, then surely money would have been the answer. Over a series of decades, money has been thought of, and provided, as the answer. Welfare has been introduced and enhanced in this country, yet over the same time that that money has been handed out by the State to more and more families, the number of children who have been abused or killed, or who have had to grow up in seriously dysfunctional families, seems to have risen and risen. The answers to parliamentary questions that I asked last month were glaringly obvious. The number of children about whom Child, Youth and Family had been notified had gone up yet again, and the highest months on record were February, March, and June of this year, 2006.

So why has this problem not been fixed, when more and more money has been handed out? The answer seems pretty clear to me, and it is something that we in ACT have been saying for quite some time. It is something that only one other party has had the honesty to talk about: the Māori Party. The real problem is welfare dependency. Making people dependent on the State for their income does nobody any good. Rather than welfare being used as a safety net, it has turned into a hammock. There is nothing safe about it. The difficulty is that the people who are really in need—those who really need State assistance and really need a hand up—cannot be found amongst all the others who actually choose to be in that safety hammock.

I get a bit sick of hearing the criticism from the media and others about Child, Youth and Family. New Zealanders need to wake up and have a realistic attitude to that agency. Child, Youth and Family social workers are out there doing their very best. They are required by law to place children with whānau, when that is not necessarily the safest option. Far too frequently, as we have seen, many children, to their detriment, have been taken from one very unsafe whānau environment and put straight into another equally unsafe, if not worse, environment. Child, Youth and Family social workers have had nowhere to place children. At 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon, when a Child, Youth and Family social worker is faced with removing a child from a family home and placing him or her somewhere else, there may be no safe environment to place the child in.

We need to change significantly the way we operate. Child protection units are the answer, whereby multiple agencies—police, welfare, health, and justice—work together so that children can be placed in a safe environment. It is not rocket science, and it is time we saw some action, not just talk, from this Government.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : As chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee, I have removed myself, to some extent, from the debate surrounding Taito Phillip Field. In fact, I made a decision very early on not to read the report, nor to involve myself in the debate in this Chamber on this issue, on the off chance that the issue was referred to the Privileges Committee. As chair of that committee, I would have to come to the issue with clean hands, as one would say. But I can comment on the smell around this issue.

As somebody who, for the reason of the office I hold, has not participated in the debate during question time, or in the general debate, I have been in a bit of a unique position to watch the reactions and body language of the Labour members of Parliament as this issue has unfolded. I genuinely believe that many of the members opposite, although I disagree with their politics, are honourable people. They see the world differently from the way I do on many issues, but I do not doubt that their motivations are pure, and I do not doubt that they believe they are doing the right thing. They are ashamed of what is going on. There are honourable members sitting opposite who know that this is bad news. It reflects poorly on all members of Parliament. That is the real problem with this particular set of circumstances. There are members opposite who just have to sit there and swallow hard, day after day, as this issue is replayed and relitigated in the House.

We have watched members like the Hon David Cunliffe come under, frankly, some of the most incisive questioning I have seen in this House in some time. That he has shifted from saying: “I can’t comment on this because it’s in the Ingram report.”, to saying 24 hours later: “I will comment on this because it is in the Ingram report.” is beyond me. To watch Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor being dragged into this sorry state of affairs makes the issue even more serious than many members of the public probably realise. We have watched middle bench Labour Ministers—the likes of Lianne Dalziel, David Parker, and Rick Barker; people who like to toil away at an honest day’s work—having to cope with sitting there and saying nothing as this issue is played out day after day.

I cannot recall one occasion, as Lockwood Smith was questioning David Cunliffe over the last three or four question times, when Labour front bench members lifted their heads from their papers and tried to defend what was going on. I have never seen Michael Cullen, Annette King, and Phil Goff—who are probably, to be fair, the powerhouse of this Government—seem so distracted by their paperwork and by the important official documents that lie in their manila folders as they have been over recent weeks. They know that this issue is rotten. When members get into taxis and talk to taxi drivers, or talk to hairdressers—the type of people who see plenty of members of the public every day—and find that this issue is all that those people want to talk about, they know that the rot is setting in. They have to sit over there and take it, knowing that their Government is starting to fall apart.

One thing is certain from National’s side of the House on this issue, and if the Government has not picked this up by now, I will let those members in on a bit of a secret: the National Party is not giving up on this issue. There is more to come, and Labour members will have to sit there and endure this treatment for quite some time. We know that the Labour Government’s regeneration and rejuvenation have been personified in the arrival of the new list member of Parliament from central Wellington today. When we look further down the Labour list, we know that that rejuvenation and reinvigoration will be continued when Lesley Soper returns. Well, that will be something to look forward to.

Today, when members put questions to Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton—as part of members questioning members on a bill they have before the House, or questioning select committee chairs—what was apparent was how shallow the depth and capability of this Labour Government is. Those members have been here for between 2 and 5 years. It was the first time that they had had to answer a question on their feet in this Chamber, and both occasions were unequivocal disasters. So if the middle bench of the Labour Government is looking thin, let me assure members opposite that the back bench looks worse. I say to those members of the Labour caucus who are sitting in the second and third rows that their places are safe, because there ain’t much action happening on Labour’s back benches, from what we saw today. In many ways that is a shame, but that is the reality of politics. There is only one rejuvenation battle going on in this House, and that is the battle between Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff over who will become the next Minister of Finance. That is about as exciting as it gets for that sad, tired, rancid Labour Government sitting opposite.

A good example is that we are hearing regularly what Labour members of Parliament really think about the Taito Phillip Field debacle. We know that they are disgusted and appalled at what this incident is doing to their Government. There is no question—and Labour members opposite know this—that it is damaging this Government and it is damaging it very, very badly. There is no honour in this issue. There is no honour in having members opposite defend the indefensible. I say to Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister that this is not one of those issues where the Labour caucus can be convinced just to hunker down and it will all go away—because it is not going to go away.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said there must be a further inquiry into this matter, and he is right about that. He is right about it for this reason. What is going on with this issue in this Parliament over the last week or two implicates every member of Parliament in this House. The whole of Parliament, and all the members in it, are being drawn in, in the public’s mind, to the bizarre details of this case. It does this Parliament no good, and it does honourable Labour members sitting opposite no good, to allow this sort of thing to carry on. It is not on. The honourable Labour members opposite—and there are two or three in the House at present—know that it stinks and that it is pulling this Government down. If they had any sense of integrity, they would go to the Prime Minister and tell her to cut Taito Phillip Field loose before he drags the rest of us in this Parliament down. That is the message that honourable Labour members opposite should dwell on tonight.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I have to comment on all the debates and speeches, except for those coming from the Government side of the House, that I have heard tonight. The words “tragic” and “appalling” spring to mind.

I will comment, firstly, on the young whippersnapper Simon Power, who said what an old, uninspiring bunch he thinks Government members may be. While he did that, I saw sitting on the benches alongside him the vibrant and young exciting group of Richard Worth, Anne Tolley, Lockwood Smith, and—last, but not least—Bob what-ever-his-name-is Clarkson. I ask Bob, is that right?

Hon Member: The builder.

LYNNE PILLAY: “Bob the Builder”. We are led to believe that—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please use the correct address for members.

Dr Richard Worth: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have correctly anticipated the objection that I was about to make in the point of order that I sought to be heard on. You have now dealt with it.

LYNNE PILLAY: I withdraw and apologise. I should not have said “Bob the Builder”; I should have said Bob Clarkson—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And Colin King.

LYNNE PILLAY: —and Colin King. Those members are a young, vibrant bunch.

I feel a bit awful here, because I also have to mention Chris Finlayson, a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee who, I must admit, does not quite fit into the mould. He is just a little more on to it than that lot, and just a teensy bit younger. But that is the face of the vibrant, exciting National Party. Those are the members from whom we have heard all the criticism, and who have been saying Labour is not cutting it and they have the one true way.

Dr Wayne Mapp: And you’re the first example.

LYNNE PILLAY: Oh God, here he is—“Mr Exterminator”! It is the PC exterminator and the father—if I can use that word; probably I should say “grandfather”—of the 90-day bill. That is the bill designed to help people to get into work. And how does National propose that we help people to get into work? It would make it easier to sack them. That party is so on to it! The National members say that by making it easier to sack people, we will open up job opportunities. Well, I know that the Māori Party said it would listen to Dr Mapp, but I can see those members are over there listening attentively and thinking: “No way, Jose; that is just not right.”

But that is enough of that, because I am not into being tragic and appalling, nor am I into focusing on trading in human emotions without actually providing practical solutions. That is what National is about. National makes attacks on beneficiaries. Anybody who is in any way living in hardship is deemed by that party to be not quite cutting it—to be less than whole. I ask my colleagues here whether that is whistle-stop politics.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

LYNNE PILLAY: They said it is. It is actually scratching at the sore—the nasty bits that make people think they may have a problem. Those members do not want to try to solve the problems but want to wallow in them, so they can say how bad things are. That is an insult to this House, it is an insult to the victims of violence, it is an insult to New Zealand families, and it is an insult to all New Zealanders.

I heard one of the previous speakers talk about how bad it is that people now report cases of violence or abuse. The reporting of those cases has gone up, and that is somehow seen by the Opposition to be bad. Well, let us talk about that, because when I was being brought up, society thought—and I was led to believe—that we had no racial disharmony in our society. And that society included all the members on the Opposition benches, who, of course, are far older than I am. At that time New Zealand society believed there was no racial disharmony, no poverty, no sexual abuse, and no real problems of violence—and that if there were any problems, then surely they were the fault of parents who were not doing their jobs properly. We know that was not the case, and that there was simply a culture of not reporting those cases. No mechanisms were in place then so we could stand alongside families and say that if they had problems, we would deal with them.

Let us, several decades later, pick up the pieces of what was not resolved at that time—a time when young children and a number of people lived in families that did not support them, and when family relationships were far from whole. People were unable to speak out then and say that what they were experiencing was not right, because there was simply nowhere for them to go. The culture was one of non-acceptance and of not reporting problems. A person who was not mainstream—if I can use that term—did not count. And we hear members on the Opposition benches using that same old rhetoric about being mainstream now. They say that people who are not mainstream have failed somehow—that they are not delivering, and that they are not bringing up their children properly. They say that if people are not helping themselves and require some assistance in any way, then they are somehow less than whole.

We know that is simply not the case. We know that from Charles Chauvel, who earlier this evening gave his maiden speech. Charles Chauvel did not come from a privileged background. He spoke about coming from an ordinary, working-class background that gave him the ability, with some support, to rise to what I think is the ultimate position a person can rise to today. The ultimate position a person can have today is to enter Parliament as a Labour politician. We cannot pay a greater compliment to anybody in this society than to elect him or her to this House, so that he or she can advocate for working people—for ordinary Kiwis—as a Labour politician. I can see the Opposition members hanging their heads in shame because of what they advocate for. They whine, grizzle, and moan. They actually put situations before the House that have not been through the select committee.

But I do not want to wallow in that; I want to talk about the achievements, the hopes, and the aspirations of many New Zealanders. Some of the most exciting of those are in the area of early childhood development. I absolutely cannot wait until next year, when every 3 or 4 year-old in New Zealand will have early childhood education. There will be 20 free hours—the Opposition members got it wrong; I saw a press statement from them saying it was 23 hours—per week of quality, teacher-driven early childhood education everywhere in New Zealand.

Steve Chadwick: That’s wonderful.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is. We can add to that apprenticeships, interest-free loans for students while they study and when they graduate, paid parental leave, rates relief for our older citizens, and conservation. I see my good friend Chris Carter here. He proudly stands alongside me on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. What a proud moment it was when we stood in Waitakere and advocated for the saving of one of our country’s greatest icons. When I heard the pathetic arguments—I cannot not call them that; they were whimperings—put out by the Opposition—

Steve Chadwick: Carpings.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is a good word. The carping I heard from the Opposition—and I will not even mention whom it was from—was pathetic.

I applaud this Government. I feel very proud to be part of it, and I feel really proud that we will see a number of great initiatives in the future. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : I am saddened to have heard the last speech from the honourable member from the Labour Party. At its highest it could be described only as being little more than an abusive rant of unconnected ramblings. I would like to move back to the issue that has detained the House in the course of today, and that concerns the actions and the response of the Government to the activities of Taito Phillip Field.

Parliament jealously guards its privileges. There is little doubt about that, and that tradition is picked up in our Standing Orders. Standing Order 23 makes it clear that on the election of a Speaker, the Speaker is to lay claim to the privileges of the House. Those privileges are there described, in the Standing Order, as especially freedom of speech in debate, free access to the Governor-General whenever occasion may require it, and that the most favourable construction be put on all the House’s proceedings. We are talking there about the privileges of Parliament. These privileges are not defined by statute, but clearly they include, in the context of the Taito Phillip Field issue, privileges that include the power to inquire, the power to obtain evidence, the power to punish for contempt, and the power to discipline members. So it is not surprising that there is an anger in the public and a frustration by members in this House when, in the face of apparent wrongdoing, Parliament is painted as powerless to intervene.

I note a short extract from the third edition of a book entitled Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by the present Clerk of the House. On page 637 he talks about the power to exercise discipline over members, because that is what the issue is in this case, and states: “Members are exempt from being punished or disciplined by anyone outside the House on account of what they may have said or done in the course of parliamentary proceedings. But members are subject to being held accountable to the House for their conduct in parliamentary proceedings. Thus the House’s rules of order in debate and its rules for disciplining and ultimately suspending members from service in the House and on committees subject members to the power that the House possesses to exercise disciplinary authority over its own members.” If the present Government could have its way there would not be that power of discipline in the present circumstances.

It is quite clear that Dr Ingram was constrained in what he could do to ascertain the truth of the allegations made against Taito Phillip Field, a member of Parliament. They are very serious allegations. I suggest that it seems the Prime Minister deliberately set terms of reference for this investigation that would produce a result that would be inconclusive as to outcome, would damage Mr Field irreparably, and would ensure that his hitherto good name was forever tarnished. We can only speculate on what the Prime Minister’s motivation can be, because an inquiry in the nature of a commission of inquiry would likely have reached the truth. Why is that? It is because of old legislation contained in the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. That old statute sets the framework for appropriate investigation and follow-up discipline. If one glances at that Act for a moment, one will see that its sections include “Powers of investigation”, “Power to summon witnesses”, “Protection of persons appearing”, and, of course, it has offence-creating provisions.

Why was the Prime Minister not prepared to allow such an inquiry to be held? She has told us the reason, in this debating chamber. Apparently, for reasons of cost it was not appropriate to allow such an inquiry to occur. I guess we are to commend her thrift, but the hypocrisy is galling, because this Government is characterised by waste.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that word and apologise.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy”, and I apologise.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that my learned colleague used the word “hypocrisy”, but I suggest he did not use it in relation to any particular member. The rule of the House is that one cannot accuse another member of hypocrisy. I suggest to you that Dr Worth did not actually do that. He talked about hypocrisy in a context of events; it was not directed at any particular member. So I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Dr Worth has not transgressed the rules of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been dealt with. I took the remark to be a reference to a member or a group of members. The matter has been dealt with, but thank you for raising it.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I have been characterising the Prime Minister’s actions in respect of an assertion of thriftiness as allegations that bear no scrutiny, at all. That is because this Government is characterised by waste. A really good example of this is the case of Ahmed Zaoui, the Algerian Muslim who secured refugee status and is currently trying to fight off a challenge that he is a security risk. That exercise has involved the Government—as we heard on 27 July, from the Minister of Finance—in expenditure to date that amounts to $2.4 million, with no end in sight. According to Dr Cullen there will be a further hearing early next year. So these cries of thrift ring hollow. More significantly, I ask what price the reputation of Parliament and its members has. I would say that when one member is challenged for corruption, all members of Parliament risk the possibility of contagion.

I do not understand the Prime Minister, because she has moved from a starting point where Mr Field was guilty of errors of judgment, to a new position where serious errors of judgment were made that render him wholly unfit for ministerial responsibility. It is a harsh sentence that is in breach of well understood notions of natural justice. That is why National continues to call for a proper inquiry into these issues.

Dr Ingram’s report is damning—there is no doubt about it. I will refer to two extracts of that report, the first of which appears at paragraph 295. This is the report that Dr Ingram was commissioned by the Prime Minister to undertake into these allegations against Mr Field. At paragraph 295 the following statement is made by Dr Ingram: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” That address was one of the properties in respect of which it was asserted that Mr Field had deployed labour. Surely Mr Field would have known whether he himself was involved in painting that property. A second illustration of this point occurs at paragraph 309 of Dr Ingram’s commentary: “The first blush response to the prospect of a mere tenant, even one that was a close friend of Mr Field’s, having repainted the entire interior together with the exterior of the windows after less than six months occupation is that it is a highly unlikely, if not improbable, proposition.” The theme that runs through this material is hugely damaging to the credibility of Mr Field.

But it is more than that. I would suggest to members of the House that it provides the basis for serious criminal charges of corruption and bribery to be brought against Mr Field. I refer to section 99 of the Crimes Act 1961, where the term “bribe” is defined. Bribe means “any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit”—those are the words I emphasise—“whether direct or indirect:” Then in section 103 there is the heading “Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament”. The effect of that section is to impose a penalty of imprisonment for a term of 7 years. A great disservice has been done to Mr Field by the course that the Prime Minister has followed, which is calculated to wreck his name and the reputation of members of this honourable House.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate and to say again how wonderful the recent Budget was. Of course, I want to talk particularly about transport. At the last election in my electorate there was a huge banner—I do not know whether it was paid for by National or the Exclusive Brethren—that asked: “What are your petrol taxes for?” [Interruption] I do not know whether the Exclusive Brethren paid for that banner. It would not surprise me if they were writing the cheques in my electorate, because a lot of money was spent there by the Opposition. I tell members there was a picture of the current Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, on that huge billboard. It asked: “What are your petrol taxes for? For roads.” Unlike members opposite, I can say that under this Government within 5 years we will be in the situation where we will be spending $300 million more on roading and transport than has been raised through petrol and excise levies, etc. It is an example of a Government that actually does something.

What a pleasure—what a privilege it was last week to go to witness the Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, opening the Mercer to Long Swamp section of the Waikato Expressway. As I have said in this House before, the rest of those members on the opposite side of the House—with the honourable exception, I think, of David Bennett who has just arrived—were comatose in terms of transport in the Waikato. They were comatose; they were in a deep, deep slumber, yet they had the gall and the “h” word—I cannot use the “h” word—to criticise this Government on transport. The honourable exception to that was a very good Waikato member, the Hon Rob Storey. Members opposite will know about the Hon Rob Storey. What did they do to the Hon Rob Storey? He was a good Minister of Transport, a good Waikato member, but of course he was removed in a previous Government. But let me acknowledge his contribution.

In regard to the Long Swamp to Mercer expressway—the dual carriageway—let me take the opportunity to praise Transit, the contractors, and the people who worked on what is a very geologically difficult area. As people will recall, for a number of years there was a joke about the “Bridge to Nowhere”. Well, it was built at the appropriate time in terms of its funding to get it in there, and it is now definitely the “Bridge to Somewhere”; it is the bridge to a vastly improved Waikato Expressway route. In the context of that opening, I acknowledge the extra $1.3 billion over 5 years to guarantee our State highway programme. Indeed, I acknowledge in fact that this Government is spending a record amount on roading and transport in this country, and of course we are the beneficiaries. We won that amount because of the advocacy of Government members of Parliament in the Waikato region, which resulted in $200 million extra going into a special Waikato transport roading package. So while members on the opposite side of the House were snoozing, sleeping, and twiddling their thumbs, Government members were getting on with the job.

I know that the member for Hamilton East, Mr Bennett, was shocked. I know for a fact he was shocked when he fully realised and discovered how little his other colleagues had done in terms of transport and roading issues in the Waikato over the last few years. In his heart of hearts he knows that this Government is doing a fantastic job—as in their heart of hearts do Opposition members. In their moments of truth, in the moments when they look in the mirror in the middle of the night, they know that this Government is doing fantastic work in terms of investing in our infrastructure.

Let us talk about rail and how the previous National-led Government literally tried to destroy rail in this country in a most shameful way—how National members literally stood by and twiddled their thumbs while the proud rail network was consigned to be bled and become inoperative. This Government invested in rail. I acknowledge people like Paul Swain, a previous Minister of Transport, and Mark Gosche, for their leadership. They have vision and they have capacity, in the best tradition of people like Bob Semple from the first Labour Government. Those people opposite would not know who Bob Semple was, but he was a great visionary in his time. I remember back in the 30s and 40s, people were criticising him then for backing things like good roads—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite impossible to hear Mr Gallagher, and that is not because of the noise from this side of the House; it is because he is shouting hysterically into the microphone. If he could lower his voice a little, I am sure members of the House might gain some faint value from his comments.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The member should not mistake enthusiasm for hysteria—or mistake passion and absolute pride. But I thank that member, because I know he is one of the more thinking members on the other side of the House, and in his heart of hearts he too must think: “Gee, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had been Government, doing all of this. I know the speeches we would have made if we had been able to do this—I know the speeches of absolute pride.” I know that Mr Worth thinks that, in his heart of hearts, but I thank him and I ask him not to mistake that I am very enthusiastic and very, very proud.

The issue of transport infrastructure is one of the wonderful aspects of our Budget, and it is so important and meaningful for the Waikato region because we are situated on the north-south major transport hub. As Hamilton, we serve and relate to two very important seaports in Tauranga and Auckland. We relate to our own international airport, but also to our other major international airport in Auckland. So that is why all this transport infrastructure is very important. It is tied up with jobs and with economic growth.

One of the wonderful things that I went to with Pete Hodgson was the opening of the Fonterra inland rail port—huge, major sheds from where the Fonterra dairy product is railed, either to Auckland or to Tauranga. I, myself, had the great privilege of going on a rail locomotive through the Kaimai tunnel and seeing the wonderful port of Tauranga. The people who drove that locomotive told me that my Government cared about rail again, that my Government was passionate about rail—and that was absolutely wonderful. Bob Clarkson knows that to be true. He can see that incredible growth at the port of Tauranga, and he knows that the economy of Tauranga relies on transport. He knows it is true that this Government is doing some fantastic work in terms of developing our infrastructure.

Other speakers have talked about Working for Families and how important that is. Other people have talked about boosting people and giving them a chance in terms of tertiary education. I also want to talk a wee bit in the context of our national identity, and to say how delighted I am in terms of the money and funding around defence. I take this opportunity, as the member for Hamilton West, to acknowledge our wonderful men and women of the Territorial Force. I also take an opportunity in this speech to acknowledge the even younger people who serve in the various training and cadet corps. Again, I acknowledge the money being spent towards the $4.6 billion defence sustainability initiative. We know how important a modern, well-equipped defence force is in the current climate we find ourselves in, in terms of international affairs. I am very proud that this Government has invested in that area.

In the brief time I have left, I want to finish on broadcasting, and to say thank you to the Minister and to the Government for the extra funding towards local television through New Zealand on Air, Radio New Zealand, and broadcasts to Pacific nations.

I thank them for that money because, again, it is very important in developing our national identity and our cultural identity, and in celebrating our diversity and putting funding into local organisations.

I am very proud to be a member for Hamilton West. I compliment this Budget and this Government. Some very, very exiting things are happening in the Waikato under this Government. If members on the opposite side of the House do not believe me, I invite them to come to my city any time.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I would happily accept the invitation of the previous speaker, Mr Gallagher. I enjoy visiting that member’s city because it is exceptionally well represented by Martin Gallagher and Dianne Yates. They do a great job for the people of Hamilton.

Today I felt very proud to be a Labour member of Parliament and a member of this great Labour-led Government, because I listened to a great new Labour member of Parliament give his maiden statement. It makes me very proud to know that I have been a friend of his since 1989. I am really, really pleased to see him here, joining us in Parliament.

I have listened to members of the Opposition with difficulty. I think a lot of people on this side of the House have difficulty reconciling the fact that we are having an important debate here in Parliament with the fact that all the members opposite deal with are the sideshows—they do not deal with the real issues.

I remind people that our Minister of Finance and Peter Dunne together released a business tax review recently. This review has already caused those who said that only the headline rate mattered to think again. People have been confronted with a document that lays out some real choices, and the word that has been fed back to me time and time again is “investment”—not “cuts” but “investment”. People want to invest in the future of our economy and in the future of our country. They want to invest in new technology. They want to invest in research and development. They want to invest in innovative staff training. They want to invest in developing export markets. They know that the Labour-led Government is a Government that believes in investing in the future. All they know is that on the other side of the House are some grizzly, griping young ones who, despite their born-to-rule attitude, just have not got over the fact that they are still on that side of the House. Well, I tell those members that those in the business world do not care who is in Government, as long as the Government is talking and listening to them. This side of the House has been working with business, because this side of the House is able to make a difference.

The bottom line is that the business tax development document is just a further building block on what we as a Government have already delivered, which was over a billion dollars worth of changes in the 2005 Budget. We have increased depreciation rates, we have reduced the fringe benefit tax, and the list goes on. I am glad we can end the debate on that note.