CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : That was another vintage contribution from Mr Shane Jones: so light on substance, so lacking in detail, and so short of the facts that matter. When we listen to the contributions of Labour MPs we can understand why Nandor Tanczos said that the general debate each week was the absolute pits.
The deepest depths of those pits were reached today by Mita Ririnui, who launched a personal attack on me. This is the person who appeared on Willie Jackson’s TV programme with Georgina te Heuheu and me a few weeks ago and said that National had never voted for a Treaty settlement. He has been on the Māori Affairs Committee since 2002 and knew the real record, but he said that none the less, because that is the party line that the Goebbels department on the ninth floor instructed him to give. That is the standard of that Minister. He is washed up, useless, and abusive. He is a person who is going nowhere, like the preceding Ministers in charge of Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. The current Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has sat in Cabinet throughout the 9 years of this Government and saw the lamentable performance of his two predecessors, is in just as much trouble as his two useless predecessors.
As my deputy leader said, there are huge issues facing this country at the moment, such as rising unemployment, and law and order problems. [Interruption] For the benefit of the Minister of Justice, who knows nothing, be it about Rongotai or P trials, does she realise that P trials are so out of control in the courts in Auckland that they last for 3 months, tying up huge resources? These are the problems that we in the National Party are anxious and, indeed, zealous to address, yet this Government is expending huge amounts of energy trying to explain away the financial issues of New Zealand First.
I frankly was appalled to hear the Prime Minister this afternoon dismiss the Cabinet Manual as a mere guide. I contrast those weasel words with her firm statement in 1999 that if Labour were elected to Government, her commitment was that Labour would deliver a Government that people could trust—it would be open and it would be accountable.
If we look at the firm and decisive way that the Cabinet Manual was employed to deal with various Ministers in the early years of this Government, and contrast it with what has been going on today, we see the difference. Dover Samuels had serious allegations made against him and was immediately required to stand down, though he was subsequently reinstated. His real crime, of course, was being a paid-up member of the George Hawkins faction of the Labour Party. As Judith Collins said, Ruth Dyson was required to resign her portfolios immediately when charges were laid against her, but she was subsequently reinstated. The same applied to Marian Hobbs, Phillida Bunkle, and Lianne Dalziel. John Tamihere was required to resign over allegations he had misled the public about a payout from his former employer. David Benson-Pope was not required to resign immediately. The facts dripped out, and Labour certainly paid the price for that. Taito Phillip Field was sacked after the last election. There was an inquiry, and again the facts dripped out, and a Queen’s Counsel was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a very flawed report. Then David Parker had allegations made against him and was required to resign his portfolios immediately. He was reinstated to Cabinet as Minister of Energy and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues when he was cleared.
That is the appropriate way to deal with these things, yet the standards have been lowered in recent times. I cannot better the excellent contributions of Mr Williamson and Mrs Collins, because they have raised a number of very important yet unanswered questions, particularly about Mr Henry’s role in this affair. Why did not Mr Henry warn Mr Peters not to constantly say that there was no involvement? Where did the money go? [Interruption]
Lianne Dalziel should listen very carefully, because this is a very good question that I would like her to answer. Where did the money go? Brian Henry did not have a trust account. Where did the money go? Of course, she is not prepared to answer that question. She is worried about answering it, because it is a fundamental question. What is the role of Mr Henry as a barrister in all this?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I just refer members on my right to Speakers’ rulings 57/3. Interjections are to be rare and reasonable.
Hon Annette King: You are being very personal and nasty today.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For obvious reasons, I am fond of the Minister of Justice on a personal level. But that is her stock response—that I am being very nasty. What I am really doing is asking some very pertinent questions that she should do well to listen to. Mr Henry, as a barrister, cannot have a trust account, and that question remains unanswered.
As my deputy leader said, there are huge issues facing this country at the moment, such as rising unemployment, and law and order problems. [Interruption] For the benefit of the Minister of Justice, who knows nothing, be it about Rongotai or P trials, does she realise that P trials are so out of control in the courts in Auckland that they last for 3 months, tying up huge resources? These are the problems that we in the National Party are anxious and, indeed, zealous to address, yet this Government is expending huge amounts of energy trying to explain away the financial issues of New Zealand First.
I frankly was appalled to hear the Prime Minister this afternoon dismiss the Cabinet Manual as a mere guide. I contrast those weasel words with her firm statement in 1999 that if Labour were elected to Government, her commitment was that Labour would deliver a Government that people could trust—it would be open and it would be accountable.
If we look at the firm and decisive way that the Cabinet Manual was employed to deal with various Ministers in the early years of this Government, and contrast it with what has been going on today, we see the difference. Dover Samuels had serious allegations made against him and was immediately required to stand down, though he was subsequently reinstated. His real crime, of course, was being a paid-up member of the George Hawkins faction of the Labour Party. As Judith Collins said, Ruth Dyson was required to resign her portfolios immediately when charges were laid against her, but she was subsequently reinstated. The same applied to Marian Hobbs, Phillida Bunkle, and Lianne Dalziel. John Tamihere was required to resign over allegations he had misled the public about a payout from his former employer. David Benson-Pope was not required to resign immediately. The facts dripped out, and Labour certainly paid the price for that. Taito Phillip Field was sacked after the last election. There was an inquiry, and again the facts dripped out, and a Queen’s Counsel was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a very flawed report. Then David Parker had allegations made against him and was required to resign his portfolios immediately. He was reinstated to Cabinet as Minister of Energy and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues when he was cleared.
That is the appropriate way to deal with these things, yet the standards have been lowered in recent times. I cannot better the excellent contributions of Mr Williamson and Mrs Collins, because they have raised a number of very important yet unanswered questions, particularly about Mr Henry’s role in this affair. Why did not Mr Henry warn Mr Peters not to constantly say that there was no involvement? Where did the money go? [Interruption]
Lianne Dalziel should listen very carefully, because this is a very good question that I would like her to answer. Where did the money go? Brian Henry did not have a trust account. Where did the money go? Of course, she is not prepared to answer that question. She is worried about answering it, because it is a fundamental question. What is the role of Mr Henry as a barrister in all this?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I just refer members on my right to Speakers’ rulings 57/3. Interjections are to be rare and reasonable.
Hon Annette King: You are being very personal and nasty today.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For obvious reasons, I am fond of the Minister of Justice on a personal level. But that is her stock response—that I am being very nasty. What I am really doing is asking some very pertinent questions that she should do well to listen to. Mr Henry, as a barrister, cannot have a trust account, and that question remains unanswered.
