[Volume:611;Page:8771]
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : There is an underlying attribute that bonds most Kiwis—the principle of fairness, of giving a bloke a fair go. Out in the heartland of New Zealand if someone rorts this attribute Kiwis can sense it, smell it, and taste it. Well, over the last 3 weeks it has been rorted all right. Opposition members, led by Messrs English, Sowry, Smith, Peters, and Franks have rorted it. They have breached the sacred bond with all New Zealanders—and this is how it works. The Government has no problem with scrutiny, no problem with debate, and no problem with criticism, but the Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, day in and day out, has had not only his rulings challenged but his essence and mana—and that is a fact.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate.
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: There is one other point that I wanted to make about that. When one challenges and questions people’s integrity and credibility, when one challenges their essence and their mana, that is not fair, because those people have their hands tied behind their back and they are sitting on the ground. But people like the member for Tauranga jump in off the fence. That member waited for 2 weeks, had his finger in the air, listened to Radio Pacific, had a think about it, then jumped off the fence and put the boot in. That is what he did. That is how low and crass the leader of New Zealand First is. Those party members in the House with him right now are a bunch of bunnies.
I grew up in west Auckland under the shadow of that great bloke—the list MP for my area, Jonathan Hunt. He might not be perfect, but one thing he has always exhibited, day in and day out and when I was a young kid growing up, is that he has always been straight, always been honest, always had integrity, and always had credibility. Then chumps come into this House and question that. It is a disgrace. It is outrageous! For 2 weeks Winston Peters sat on the fence and waited for a bloke to be down, and then he jumped in. That is the measure of it. That is the crass, low measure of the member for Tauranga.
Enough of the member for Tauranga, anyway, and the Māori boys he has with him, because no one knows who they are. They never go out to the constituencies and they never do anything. They just sit on the fence. They will not contest the Māori seats, but all of a sudden they have some Māori seats. They do not have any policy, or anything else.
I will conclude by speaking of one other matter, and that is the political career of the legend—in his own mind—from the ACT party, Stephen Franks. I had cause to look at his website. He often describes himself as a “former top lawyer”. We know all about the “former”, but I do not know about the “top”. Where are his fingerprints on any legal treatise? Where are his fingerprints on any commercial case of any substance in this country? Where are they? [Interruption] They are not. I will tell members where they are, though. This is what he says: “It hasn’t been thought yet”—[] Unlike the people on the other side of the House, we do not take pecuniary gain, like Richard Prebble. I am not paid by external agents to be here, as Richard Prebble is. I am here—
Hon Richard Prebble: Point of order—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I think I can anticipate the point of order.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a grossly disorderly accusation to put across the House that a member is being paid by external agents to be in the House. I demand that the matter be withdrawn and apologised for.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Prebble. Mr Tamihere—
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I withdraw and apologise, especially to the honourable Richard Prebble.
I have a statement from Mr Franks’ latest speech, in which he says: “A chummy little political elite has controlled our justice system for 20 years. I know, because I was one.” His record makes it clear that he was at the centre of it. He goes on to say: “They have given much of the dirty work to the judges.”
Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely false accusation. I did not make those statement.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a matter for debate.
Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is misleading the House, and deliberately so.
Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a debate where the ACT party has had its contribution. For a Minister to claim to the House that he is quoting from a member, when he is not, is pretty close to a breach of privilege. He should be warned he should not be saying to the House that a member made a statement, if he cannot authenticate it.
Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to be a recurring theme. If the member believes there has been a breach of privilege, proper procedures are laid down and they are not by way of point of order. The member concerned should lay a breach of privilege claim.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a matter of concern, during the last two points of orders taken by Stephen Franks and Richard Prebble, John Tamihere remained on his feet. Normally, the Speaker calls a person, recognises him or her on a point of order, and the person who may have had his or her speech interrupted sits down. It is very disorderly when the Speaker does not rise giving the point of order, and when the person who has the call stays on his or her feet and keeps interrupting the point of order. That has just happened twice in a row, and it will be very disorderly if you permit that to continue.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising those issues. I hope the Minister will take note of the concerns those members have. During points of order there is to be no talk, no interjections, and no one standing up, except the person talking to the point of order.
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Between 1991 and 1995 Mr Stephen Franks was lucky enough, through political patronage, to achieve a number of appointments to Government committees. By his own acknowledgment, he oversaw the legal restructuring of a number of matters, from Crown health enterprises through to the Electricity Industry Reform Act. If I were worth my salt, there would have to be an action in negligence for the type of advice that organisations got from that bloke. Under no circumstances would anyone in his or her right mind acknowledge that advice.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next member, some concern was raised during the last member’s speech about references to the Speaker. I did not take them as references, in the context of what we had been talking about. I see no harm in members’ saying something good about the Speaker and praising him, and that is what the member was doing.