Parliamentary Debate

DEBATE--PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT

Hon. MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National--Albany): I take the opportunity today to remind two members of this House of some words they have used on previous occasions, and to invite them to inspect their conduct of recent weeks against the yardsticks that I believe they have created for themselves.

I turn first to the Minister of Customs, the Hon. Phillida Bunkle. I took the trouble the other day of reading her maiden speech to this House, and I saw there some words that I believe may come back to haunt her. She spent a good deal of her maiden speech railing against the new right and the way in which her constituency had been neglected. She said these words: ``The people voted to soften the relentless market but got only a double-breasted snigger from contemptuous politicians who use words to mean whatever they want them to mean.'' I was also intrigued to see a phrase in support of the welfare State, later on in the honourable member's speech. She said these words: ``My parents' generation, knowing only two world wars and a slump, provided free health and education, and affordable housing. I did not turn into a feckless bludger.'' I thought those were interesting words for members to note on this occasion.

I turn now to some words used during the course of the election campaign by our current Prime Minister. She said: ``The Labour Government will set new standards both in terms of behaviour and performance so that we govern for the people and are accountable to them.''

I invite the Minister of Customs and the Prime Minister to measure their conduct in relation to the matters that have been referred to earlier today, and are on the front page of the Evening Post tonight, against the yardsticks that I believe they created for themselves on those previous occasions.

I listened with some care and some interest to the address made to this House last night by the Minister of Customs. I have read a good deal of what has been published on this subject, and I have come to the conclusion that that Minister survives in the ministry for two reasons and two reasons alone. Firstly, she survives because the Prime Minister believes that one can fit a cigarette paper between the Electoral Act and the determination of the Higher Salaries Commission. Secondly, she survives in office because the Prime Minister believes that if she does not ask the difficult questions, then she will not get any embarrassing answers. Those are the only two reasons I can find for the Minister of Customs remaining in office today.

This is the Minister who, on 18 January 1999, completed a declaration to the Electoral Enrolment Centre that she, for the purpose of enrolment, lived at 204 Sydney Street in Wellington. She is the person who, in June of 1997, was able to complete the necessary paperwork to assert to the Parliamentary Service Commission that she was resident in Waikanae. To most members of the public, that looks like a person who lives in Wellington inquiring of the Parliamentary Service Commission, before she had even become a member, what she would have to do to collect the allowances, then contriving her circumstances so as to be able to complete the assertions that she did complete, and thus collect the Wellington allowance. That is how it looks to ordinary New Zealanders.

For the Prime Minister, who said that she was going to set new standards in terms of behaviour and performance, to dance on a pinhead and accept that the explanation is satisfactory, when it relies on a cigarette paper being placed between the determination of the Higher Salaries Commission and the provisions of the Electoral Act, is something that I believe she must now account to the public of New Zealand for.

I go back to the Minister of Customs' own phrase: ``... contemptuous politicians who use words to mean whatever they want them to mean.'' Many New Zealanders will look at those two declarations and ask how appropriate the Minister's own definition may be in respect of her actions.

But the Minister survives in office also because the Prime Minister has chosen not to ask the hard questions--not even the moderately difficult questions, if I might say so.

Hon. Roger Sowry: Not any questions.

Hon. MURRAY McCULLY: Probably not any questions.

I want to dwell on just one point. The Prime Minister knows that the Minister claimed that from 1 June 1997 she was living in Waikanae. It is also now widely known amongst the news media and amongst members of this House that the letter from an engineering firm providing a certificate confirming, for the purposes of the Kapiti Coast District Council, that the house in Waikanae had been sited on the section, inspected, and approved was dated 3 September of that year. So we have a period from 1 June 1997 to 3 September 1997 for which the Minister has some explaining to do.

I am sure there is an outstanding explanation for those events. I am sure the Minister of Customs can give a perfectly good account of how the house for which she claimed an allowance from the beginning of June became certificated for the purposes of the Kapiti Coast District Council on 3 September of the same year. However, the question I ask is whether the Prime Minister has asked for that explanation.

Last night, that Minister sought leave to give a personal explanation to the House. She then made a speech to the House in which she gave no explanation of those two dates. This matter is widely known amongst members and the media. For those who do not have them, I shall table the letters to Mr Lepper and Ms Bunkle, and the letter to the building consents department of the Kapiti Coast District Council. The few who do not have them will be able to reflect on them. But an explanation is due, and the fact that the Prime Minister has not asked for that explanation speaks volumes for the attitude of the Prime Minister.

Members should remember that this is not any old Prime Minister we are talking about here. This is the new, holier-than-thou, ``butter wouldn't melt in my mouth'' Prime Minister who was going to bring in new standards of behaviour and performance, and ensure that we govern for the people and are accountable to them. Those are questions that the holier-than-thou Prime Minister should have asked of that Minister before now, and I tell her today that she should ask them now.

The Minister remains in office for those two reasons. Personally, I have no problem with that. In fact, I think that is a positive development for this side of the House. That Minister hangs around the neck of the Prime Minister as a constant reminder of, a lasting monument to--and I cannot use the ``h'' word in this House--the emptiness of the bold words spoken by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The Prime Minister has some questions to ask of her Minister, and some accounting to do to the public whom she said she would govern for and be accountable to. Let the public decide--to quote the Minister--where the ``double-breasted snigger from contemptuous politicians who use words to mean whatever they want them to mean.'' is coming from. I also suggest as a footnote that the public may draw their own conclusions as to who the feckless bludger is whom she referred to on an earlier occasion.

I seek the leave of the House to table the documentation from Truebridge Callender Beach Ltd that I referred to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.