General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. A few weeks ago, I accused Helen Clark of leading the most corrupt Government in New Zealand history. In the last few years we have seen “paintergate”—do members remember that—when Helen Clark forged her name on a painting she did not paint. We have seen “Doone-gate”—do members remember that—where Helen Clark bad-mouthed the Commissioner of Police to the media and then claimed she had not done so. We have seen Helen Clark allow the driver of a Crown car and five police officers take the rap for driving her through South Canterbury at 160 kilometres an hour—do members remember that? We have seen Helen Clark deny that she knew the Treasury estimate of the cost of the interest-free student loan bribe—and, indeed, deny that she knew that Treasury had even done such an estimate—only to have the denial categorically refuted after the election.

In the last few months, we have seen Helen Clark set up an inquiry into very serious allegations of corruption against a member of her caucus, but set it up in such a way as to guarantee that it could not deal with the most serious allegations. Then we have seen her refuse to set up a proper inquiry and to allow the serious allegations to hang over the House and taint the reputation both of the member concerned and of Parliament more generally.

Now we have the grandaddy of them all: it is now clear that Helen Clark has been told by no fewer than four different official agencies that spending on her infamous pledge card was election spending. First, the Auditor-General told the Labour Party in June last year—3 months before the election—what was and what was not election spending and that advice made it clear that anything as explicitly electioneering as the pledge card would be election spending and should not be financed from taxpayers’ money. There can be no doubt that the Auditor-General’s report to Helen Clark in the last few weeks confirmed that.

More than 2 weeks before the election, as my colleague Tony Ryall pointed out, the then Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, advised Mike Smith, the Labour Party secretary—in writing—that the pledge card was election spending and should be included in Labour’s electoral spending limit. The Electoral Commission then referred the pledge card to the police, and argued that, prima facie, expenditure on the card took total Labour expenditure above the legal amount the party was allowed to spend. Finally, the recent letter from the Solicitor-General to the Auditor-General makes it clear that funding the pledge card was election spending. Four official agencies made the position clear. The police investigating the matter also found a prima facie case that the law had been breached.

In reality, two laws were broken. First, the Labour Party exceeded the legal limit it was allowed to spend on its campaign by almost half a million dollars—roughly, the cost of the pledge card. Had my colleague Bob Clarkson been shown to have deliberately overspent his modest $20,000 limit, he would have forfeited the Tauranga seat in the election. Labour exceeded the limit by almost half a million dollars, and Helen Clark wants us to ignore it. Secondly, the Auditor-General has made it clear that the Labour Party used large amounts of taxpayers’ money in clear breach of the rules.

And what does Helen Clark want us to do? She wants us to believe that the rules are unclear, or that all political parties have been doing it since 1989, or that we should talk about raiding more money from the taxpayer’s pocket for the next election, or that we should hold an inquiry, or that this is just a “beltway” issue of no interest to the country outside Wellington.

This is an outrage; Helen Clark stole the election. Not content with enormous bribes to voters with other people’s money, she had to misappropriate half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund her campaign. She should pay the money back. She should then resign, go to the country, and have a fair election.

Madam Assistant Speaker—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Order!

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am on my feet. I have called for order, and members will come to order.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The good news for Don Brash is that there will be a job for him once he retires. He can get the job as the option in the Energiser battery ad, because he has shown yet again that he simply is not up to it at all. That from the man—[Interruption]

💬 Martin Gallagher: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will remind members that points of order will be heard in silence.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Madam Speaker—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just remind that member who spoke that that is his final warning.

💬 Martin Gallagher: As the elected member for Hamilton West, I do not believe it to be unreasonable that I should be in a position to hear the Deputy Prime Minister of this country in this Chamber—or to hear any other speaker, for that matter. I understand that interjections should be rare and reasonable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just—[Interruption] There will be order while I am ruling on a point of order. The member makes a perfectly valid point of order, which is that all members are entitled to hear. The barraging was way beyond interjections.

That speech was from the man who was forced to admit election overspending. That man was forced to admit that that party overspent because it did not pay its GST, when he was the one who headed the committee that set up GST. That man has yet to explain his close personal links with the Business Roundtable. Come on, I say to Don Brash—he should tell us about his close personal links with the Business Roundtable. [Interruption] That man, who is yet to explain—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. This is just way beyond interjections. No members can hear the member who is speaking now. I have stopped the clock, and the member will continue his speech until members can hear it. Nobody can hear what is going on.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The noise was so loud that I request that I get to start my speech again from the beginning, and that that will continue until there is a reasonable level of quietness in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Right, I will rule on that point of order. That is exactly what will happen, until members can hear other members speak. The member will start his speech again, and he will start with 5 minutes’ speaking time.

💬 Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I also give my speech again, on the same grounds? [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated; I am on my feet. The barraging has come from the member’s party, as the member knows, and it is—[Interruption] Look, a member is going to go out in a minute. You have had your final warning. I gave a warning to members over there. When I am on my feet and when a point of order is being heard, there will be silence. I say to the member again that the barraging from the member’s party means that nobody can hear what is going on and, certainly, during the member’s speech, most of the noise came from the member’s own party.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I simply ask for some consistency in your rulings. During the entire speech—the very good speech—that was given by the Leader of the Opposition, the front bench of the Labour Party continuously barracked. The only way I could listen to that good speech was to push my ear right up to the speaker, in exactly the same way—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There will be silence during points of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: If she was on our side you would kick her out—but never mind.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark. Before he does that, the ruling I would give is, clearly, about the amount of interjection—and it was interjection; I was listening very carefully, and it was not continuous barraging. There is a concerted effort this afternoon to have continuous barraging, and it will not be tolerated.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on that point of order. It had better be a new point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is quite simply that you need to be consistent, and if you are going to allow Dr Cullen to start his speech again, you must simply apply exactly the same rule to Dr Brash’s speech, because there was exactly the same continuous barracking during the course of his speech and you chose not to intervene. I can only draw the conclusion that there are different rules in this House, depending on whether members are on your side or the other.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s point of order, and the argument he makes, are completely out of order. The member knows that he cannot make those allegations. The point I am making is that there were interjections when the member Don Brash was speaking. There was not continuous barraging—and that is what all members in the House are complaining about. That is why the member will start his speech again at 5 minutes.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I suggest, as a way forward, that not only does Dr Michael Cullen get to start his speech again but you rule that the next two speakers be heard in silence. Otherwise, it is hopeless, because you have had repeated rulings. If we hear the speeches in silence, then maybe members can learn the difference between interjecting in a way that is witty, and barraging.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, this is a robust debate. We try to have the Wednesday debate as a robust debate, but the member does make a good point. It has got to the point this afternoon where there has been that continuous decision, I think, to have barraging by one party—which is completely disrupting the whole House this afternoon. I will continue, and we will see what happens if members stop the barraging and make fair interjections. I thank the member for his point of order.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier you directed Dr Smith to withdraw and apologise. I do not believe that he has in fact done so yet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I did not actually ask him to withdraw and apologise. I did reprimand him for what he said. I have warned him that what he said was out of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order, Dr Smith?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Of course it is, Madam Assistant Speaker. It may just assist members on this side of the House if you could explain what “barraging” means. I have heard of the word “barracking”, but I am not sure what “barraging” means. It may just assist matters.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member may be trying to be rather smart. I said “barracking”. [Interruption] A member will go out in a minute if there cannot be some semblance of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. No member of this House is entitled to mislead the House, not even the Speaker. I am sure that if you check the Hansard you will find that you have referred to “barraging” many times in recent minutes, and members on this side of the House are at a loss to know what on earth you mean.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think members are very clear about what I have said.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, the member is correct; you did say “barraging”. It is an interesting neologism because a barrage, of course, is a massive onslaught of noise and one can therefore coin the verb “to barrage” from that. The translation of nouns into verbs is quite a common modern linguistic habit.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think the member who raised the point of order is perfectly clear about what is happening this afternoon and I do not think it needs to be explained any further.

One could say a number of things about Dr Brash’s speech. The most interesting point is that when some newspaper latched upon a strange rumour that the Prime Minister was going to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr Brash said he would support the nomination. Yet this afternoon he said that the Prime Minister leads the most corrupt Government in New Zealand’s history. Well, that is a great way to set himself up for the future if he ever visits the United Nations. But, of course, that was a demonstration of the “new” Leader of the Opposition—the man with guts. It was a phrase invented for Gerry Brownlee but kindly donated by him to Don Brash, who is a man of principle.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the money!

Indeed, the National Party overspent its election spending because it did not count GST, despite the fact that its leader headed the committee that set up GST.

We were told by members of the National caucus yesterday that they had a disastrous caucus because they cannot agree over their leadership and their style. This is the man of guts and principles. Now, what does guts mean from Dr Brash? Guts means saying very naughty words quite often. He has now said “bloody” three times in the last 2 weeks. He even said, like a demented Shakespearian pretender to the throne, “bastards”. Like “bastard of Normandy” or “bastard of Kent”, he said “bastards”; then twice he said a very big, gutsy word—“crap”. Oh! And those words seared themselves to the heart of this Government. We had never been so savagely attacked before.

But where are the principles? He said: “I would work with the devil to get rid of this Government.” Did he tell the Exclusive Brethren that? Did he tell them that he would work with the devil to get rid of this Government? Where is he on the nuclear issue, when he wants it gone by lunchtime, then for the election he says that, no, he supports a nuclear-free stance? Where is he on State-owned enterprise sales, when he supports the sale of State-owned enterprises, but his policy was that he would not sell State-owned enterprises? Where is he on New Zealand superannuation, when he said he wanted to raise the age of entitlement, but his policy was not to raise the age of entitlement? Where is he on the labour market, when he said that he wanted to end 4 weeks’ holiday, but the promise was not to end 4 weeks’ holiday?

But the doozy of them all, of course, is the Exclusive Brethren. What is the story on that member? On the one day he said: “I don’t know who is responsible for the pamphlets.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

That is right—from the man who said that the Exclusive Brethren destroyed families in the name of Christianity. That is what Nick Smith said about them.

Then the next day Dr Brash said: “I know it’s not the National Party that did the pamphlets.” The next day he said: “They haven’t offered me financial support.” The next day he said: “We met. We discussed the pamphlets. We knew about them. We knew about the money. We knew about the content. We lined it all up.” But 3 days earlier that man of principle and guts had denied any knowledge at all, and there is a four-letter verb that describes that particular action on the part of that member. Mr Key is staying very quiet because he knows who the person is who introduced Dr Brash to the Exclusive Brethren—but more of that later, when Mr Peters returns to Parliament some time within the next few weeks.

What about National’s other spending? What about Bill English’s billboards? What about the foreshore and seabed billboards? What about the postcards that went out this year, paid for by Parliamentary Service, on tax cuts? What about the full-page advertisement in the newspaper on PlunketLine, paid for by Parliamentary Service, not by the National Party? What about the advertisement just yesterday from “Bob the Builder” Clarkson, “come on, jokers, let’s attack the nanny State”, with the parliamentary crest on the bottom right-hand side, paid for by Parliamentary Service? What about the flight down to Nelson to say hello to Ian Ewen-Street, as a new member of Parliament, paid for by Parliamentary Service? What did that have to do with anything other than trying to persuade people to vote for the National Party?

These people do not have their hands in just the public till, they have their hands in every other till as well. What they will not tell us is what they have promised in return for all the money that has flowed in.

The Green Party has had a tremendous reaction from around the country since we launched a petition yesterday at both the Auckland and Wellington railway stations calling on the Government to guarantee the continued operation of the iconic Overlander passenger service for the next 2 years while the following important steps are undertaken: a study is initiated to assess the long-term viability of the service; an integrated marketing campaign is conducted to further increase passenger numbers; and the necessary resources are invested by ONTRACK to return the rail track back to a standard that will allow the service to run reliably.

We have had support from around the country. All kinds of people are helping with that petitioning across the country. By and large, Dr Cullen’s response to questions from Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Kedgley in the question period today was disappointing. It is true, and we are at least heartened by the fact, that he did not rule out some form of future service and that he talked about it as a possible tourist service. But I think it is important—and councils across the North Island are calling for this—to keep the service going in the meantime because it will be much harder to resurrect the service when it runs out completely than it will be to keep it in operation for 6 months, 12 months, or, as our petition proposes, for 2 years while we take the steps suggested in that petition. It is not as if it will be a huge burden on the Government’s budget.

Of course, there has to be negotiation over what the Government’s financial contribution might be and in what way the Government becomes involved. Toll suggests $1.75 million and a $500,000 injection to help with the rolling stock. That is not an excessive amount. It should be negotiated to see whether it is appropriate for that level, but it would not break the Government’s budget, particularly when we are talking about an iconic service that has been going for 98 years. Folk songs have been written about it, etc.

The thing that I picked up at the Auckland railway station yesterday, and which I have picked up across the country, is that it is part of New Zealand’s culture and we should maintain it at all costs. It is true that the patronage has dropped, as Dr Cullen mentioned in one of his replies. It has dropped from 90,000 to 50,000 over a 2-year period. But the main reason for this is not that people are just taking the cheap air fares—cheap air fares have been in operation beyond that period. I think the real reason is the reliability of the service. A 12-hour service in the summer can take up to 14 hours. It could be that the service would take a much shorter time if the proper maintenance work was done on the track. There has been delayed maintenance since the privatisation of the railway back in 1993, and it is good that the Government has taken back the track and put some money into the development of the railway. But much more money is needed and the development needs to be sped up.

All the marketing and tourism people say that the railway could be a huge success, but it needs marketing. Most of the tourist operators have pulled back on the marketing because it is not a reliable service. So reliability is the key here. Subsidies work around the world. The Australian Government gives subsidies to the Great Southern Railway, and that has increased patronage over recent times by 40 percent—although if our railway were marketed properly, it probably would not need a subsidy.

We should see it as iconic. What the Māori Party member asked in question time today was very relevant. This railway goes through two key Māori areas. The first is the Tainui area. Government members have been down at Tūrangawaewae celebrating the appointment of the new king, and we heard today that the king is in favour of keeping that service, if at all possible. It is part of his people’s cultural heritage. Similarly, with the Tongariro National Park having been granted to this nation by Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the train service is particularly appropriate. It already stops at National Park.

It is good to be back in the House. I always like to be back here, just across the way from Mr Nick Smith. It is always good to see him back into the therapy here, which seems to be what he relies upon—to come and sit here and barrack across the House. Every time we get back here we see the National Party members all lined up there, and it reminds us again why it is so important to have a Labour Government, with the support of people like Judy Turner and so on, to make sure that the country is led by people who are reasonable and decent, and not like the National Party members.

Have members noticed that during the adjournment breaks, we never hear a single thing from National Party members? It is as if they actually need the House, because they are so lazy and hopeless that without the House, with the press gallery conveniently looking at them as they sit here to report their words, they can do absolutely nothing. We never hear a single word from them. Without the House, Maurice Williamson would be a completely unknown figure. National members have to be able to be here.

Meanwhile, we on this side of the House have had a tremendous adjournment break. We have been out promoting all sorts of things, like how to reduce the prison population. We have been visiting our electorates. All the regional newspapers are full of Labour MPs. Meanwhile, there is nothing from the National Party except about the election spending issue, which boils down, of course, to the use of the crest. For the benefit of those who are listening today, I say that the crest means that one has used Parliamentary Service’s money. The National Party claims to be clean on this issue, and its members want to pretend that everybody else, but not them, is somehow rorting the system.

I just got, in about 3 seconds flat, some examples of National Party material. This is from its website. This material is from the National Party’s “Waste Watch—keeping an eye on your money” website, which basically tells me I ought to vote for the National Party. Oh! There is the crest on it! It must be paid for by Parliamentary Service. And here is material from the www.axecarbontax.co.nz website. Again, it is from the National Party and is basically asking us to vote for it—and there is the crest on the material! It must be paid for by Parliamentary Service.

Here is a brochure that is not from the website. This is a brochure about what the National Party stands for and it is actually asking us to vote for the National Party. What do I find? Oh! There is the crest on it! It must have been paid for by Parliamentary Service.

Here is Don Brash in shirtsleeves, looking like a dangerous, rocker-type person. The National Party is advertising that Don Brash is holding a Wellington meeting—and there is the crest! A political meeting is being advertised, and votes are wanted by the National Party. Here is a large notice about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It states the National Party’s position and asks people to vote for National on that—and there is the crest again! What is this one here? This ad states that National backs PlunketLine. The National Party could not have cared less about PlunketLine in 1990, but it does now.

Here is a big ad in the newspaper—oh, there is the crest again! The ad was paid for with Parliamentary Service money. Here is an ad asking whether we are sick of the nanny State and asking good jokers out there to unite. There is an indigenous person on it. “Bob the Builder” is wasting his time. “Bob the Builder” is telling us to come to a meeting with him, paid for by Parliamentary Service. All of these things are paid for by Parliamentary Service.

We might like to say something too about the Exclusive Brethren. The Exclusive Brethren are an ongoing embarrassment. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is not allowed to accuse another member of that. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Bob Clarkson: I really hesitate, but I will apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will warn the member once that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise, that is all he or she says. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Bob Clarkson: I withdraw and apologise.

The big embarrassment for the National Party is, of course, the Exclusive Brethren. Here is what the National Party has said. In an interview with Paul Holmes, for example, Dr Brash said he had no knowledge of the pamphlets. The following day he walked away from reporters. The following day he told reporters he had known about the pamphlets but had not read, endorsed, funded, or distributed them. He admitted he had met with the group three times in 18 months, but he also told us he had no idea when and how he met them. We are also told by people that he went as far as to make sure that those appointments were taken out of his diary so that no one could discover them.

We come, therefore, to the last advert that is worth talking about today. It shows the new Don Brash—no more “Mr Mild Man”. Don says he is back and is taking no crap—he says it politely; he often says it politely—because he is now a man of guts. By the way, this is not a national ad in the sense of being nationwide. It is being trialled only in Taupō. I do not know why—the people of Taupō obviously believe deeply in the man of principle. So National is running the ads up there to see whether people will fall for it. Well, if the man of guts, the man of principle, is truly this, why does he not come here today and tell us the truth about the Exclusive Brethren? Did he know about the pamphlets? Did he know about the money? Did he meet with these people? If the appointments with them have been taken out of his diary, did he do so? He needs to clear that up today in order to be the man of guts and the man of principle.

On 28 April 2005 the Auditor-General of New Zealand, an officer of this Parliament, signed two letters. He signed a letter to the Prime Minister of this country and a letter to the Leader of the Opposition. The Auditor-General—the watchdog of public finances—had been investigating for many months attempts by the Labour Party to spend taxpayers’ money in the form of advertising, under the heading Working for Families, that he knew would intrude into the election process. The Auditor-General signed those two letters on 28 April because he wanted to blow the whistle and inform the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of a way forward. The Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister that he considered it imperative, before the election and before presenting the report to the House, to seek some level of cross-party commitment to a reform process.

The Leader of the Opposition received that letter and responded to the Auditor-General by saying that of course he would put a meeting time in his book and to come and talk to him. A few weeks later, some very embarrassed officials from the Audit Office had to ring the office of the Leader of the Opposition to say that they did not need the meeting, because the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the great upholder of public values in this country, refused to meet the Auditor-General.

The Prime Minister said: “No, I will not meet the Auditor-General to discuss the report.” When one reads the report one can see why. The Auditor-General wanted to discuss this report with the Prime Minister. That report states: “It is a generally held principle that taxpayers do not pay for political parties’ publicity, except for support of parties’ parliamentary activities or the conduct of ministerial business. This is broadly consistent with the accepted position in New Zealand that the State does not fund political parties.” That is the letter the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a discussion. That is the reason the Prime Minister of this country told the Auditor-General to take a running jump. She told the Auditor-General that she refused to meet him.

Members on this side had a pretty fair idea that she was going to be a bit embarrassed in the discussion anyway. We knew Labour had plans to spend $23 million of taxpayers’ money getting re-elected, with the Working for Families publicity programme and other programmes of that type. But never, never in our wildest dreams—or perhaps in our worst nightmares—did we believe that the Prime Minister, even at that point when she received the letter from the Auditor-General, had plans to spend half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money out of her leader’s budget, which she was going to sign off, and that was going to be unlawful expenditure within the meaning of the Public Finance Act. The Prime Minister of this country declined to meet the Auditor-General because she knew when she received the letter from him that she had already signed off on a plan to spend half a million bucks on the Labour Party illegal pledge card, which is coming home to roost.

The problem was it was all going swimmingly until, of course, Mr Henry came on the scene. Mr Henry signed off this letter on 2 September. He made it very clear to the Labour Party that, firstly, this was not an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and, secondly, whatever the source of the money, Labour had to declare it as an election expense under section 214B of the Electoral Act. Labour knew from that day, as Mr Clarkson knew when he was told by the Auditor-General that his spending would be under scrutiny, that it had to do something about it. Mr Clarkson, faced with the same warning from the auditors, said: “Oh no, I won’t spend what I was planning to spend for the last few weeks of the campaign.” He obeyed the law. The Labour Party had the same warning from the same Auditor-General and what did it do? It went ahead and knowingly broke the law. Section 214B has a description for that conduct. It is called a corrupt practice. That is a corrupt practice, as stated right there in section 214B.

There is considerable irony in following that member—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s a corrupt Minister.

—that member, in particular—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot call the Minister corrupt like that. He knows that that is not within—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have just listened, with great clearness, to a speech from Mr McCully that makes it absolutely plain within the definition of the law that what the Government did was corrupt. I will not have you, as a member who was elected on that corrupt practice, tell me that I cannot say that in this Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he can never bring the Speaker into the debate. For that the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. There is a clear Speaker’s ruling on the word “corruption”—of calling another member a corrupt member. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for those two—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise for bringing the Speaker into the debate, but I stand by my statement that this is a corrupt Government in terms of the Electoral Act.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is actually much that needs to be said. The member has been required to withdraw and apologise by you. He has declined and the procedures at this point, I think, require naming.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just before I do that I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise. I will just ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have, to you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I asked the member to withdraw and apologise for calling the Minister a corrupt Minister. Please stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, I am not going to. The Government has been disgraced.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member now needs to leave the House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I would rather leave than tell a lie.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I remind the member that he cannot make a comment like that when he leaves. He has been told to leave and he says nothing more.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Much as I do not want to comment on your last ruling, I think it is one that sets a terrible precedent. It has been very clear in the past when members make that sort of comment that there has been additional punishment put on them. I have experienced that myself from Speakers from both sides, and frankly I think it is a useful precedent, and one that should be stuck to. If people can abuse the Chair as they leave and not receive further punishment, then this House will fall even further into disrepute.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, the member makes a perfectly valid point, and certainly all members, when they are asked to leave the House, should leave without making any comment at all. I know that I certainly do not want to see this practice continue. If it does, there will be action.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleague Dr Smith—and I am not challenging your ruling—is pretty upset with the actions of the Government. Throughout Dr Brash’s speech and other speeches in the House this afternoon we have heard the word “corruption” being used many, many times. There were no points of order at that stage. The Speaker never interrupted the speeches at that stage when the word “corruption” was used. I do not know where in the Speakers’ Rulings it is stated—and you may be able to point me in the right direction—that the word “corruption” cannot be used. I have not sought that ruling myself.

Dr Smith has been ejected from the House for saying that this is a corrupt Government, and that the people involved are corrupt, but his remark was in line with the whole theme that has been running from Dr Brash’s speech when he led the debate for National at the start of the general debate. The word “corruption” has come up many times, and I think it is appropriate that that word continue to be used, as there were no interjections and no one brought points of order during the period when that word was used. As you have ejected Dr Smith from the House—and I am not challenging what you have done—that is punishment in itself, and in our view no further action needs to be taken.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That was not what happened. The member clearly called the Minister “a corrupt Minister”, and he cannot do that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to strongly reject the submission the National Party whip has just made to you. The idea that Ministers or Governments can be described in that way has been outside the Speakers’ rulings ever since we have had a Parliament, and just because apparently someone else did it earlier does not bring it within the Speakers’ rulings. You will remember, of course, that there was considerable noise from the National Party at the time Dr Brash was speaking. Many of us could not hear. We did not complain, because we did not think we were missing much.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order. There will be no further discussion.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order? Because I have dealt with this issue.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Yes, it is a new point of order. I understand the ruling that has been made, and there is a series of Speakers’ rulings that deal with the matter. But I invite you to read section 214B(3) of the Electoral Act, which creates a quite precise definition of a “corrupt practice”. A narrow legal term is used in section 214B(3) to describe certain activities. In fact, it also describes it as an “illegal practice” the situation where a politician or a political party engages in the same sort of act, but unknowingly.

I want you to inspect that section of the Act and perhaps consider giving the House a considered ruling. Clearly, there has to be a way of members being able to refer, in the course of debate, to that section and to the legal consequences of that section in a way that is inside the Standing Orders. I would like you to advise the House, in light of your earlier ruling, how we might be able to do so.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you will find that it could well be valuable to give that sort of considered ruling, but I think many of us who have been here not too long would be able to right it relatively quickly. There are proper ways of bringing up matters such as that—as with a number of other criminal matters that members, including members opposite, have been accused of in the past—and it is not through comment in this Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. We are dealing with the order of the House.

It is a pleasure to rejoin the debate and to say it is an irony to follow the attempt made by the member who has just resumed his seat as he seeks to mount the pedestal of high moral ground by quoting the Auditor-General as saying—I wrote his quote down—words to the effect that taxpayers do not pay for a party’s political activities. Well, let us look at some of the National Party’s political activities. I have a brief sample of the sort of thing that one can talk about in a 5-minute speech.

We can begin at the time when Bill English was the leader of the National Party in 2003. He had billboards around the country, paid for by the taxpayer, complete with parliamentary crests that, of course, were political in nature. Is Bill English not a politician? So we have the National Party on its very big high horse, and, as Michael Cullen said during question time, when one mounts that sort of saddle, one had better make sure it will stay upright. Certainly, this information I have here—what National stands for, in pretty colours, largely in blue—has a parliamentary crest on it and is, therefore, a piece of propaganda paid for by the taxpayer.

But we can go further; we can go to my home town of Dunedin, 3 weeks before the election. Here is a letter from Katherine Rich MP that states: “More money for superannuitants.” Does this letter suggest that Katherine Rich is seeking to reduce votes for National? I think not. Can we assume that this activity is, therefore, a party political activity? I think we can. The letter talks about the National Party, it talks about a better deal, it talks about guarantees, it has Katherine Rich’s signature on it, it has the National Party insignia on it, and it has a parliamentary crest. This letter was paid for by the taxpayer. And on and on it goes.

We have the sight of the unctuous Don Brash—the man who a year ago could not remember whether he had met with the Exclusive Brethren, did not tell his deputy half the story, and did not tell his finance spokesperson half the story. Then, in the third week of the campaign, in an extraordinary several days, the media got information piece by piece from the reluctant and denying Dr Don Brash. He is the man who said to Paul Holmes: “I don’t know where the pamphlets came from.”, but within days, he did. Within days he had worked out that he had met the Exclusive Brethren once. Then he said he had met them more than once. Then he said he had met them several times. And then, finally, he confessed he knew the Exclusive Brethren were bankrolling his campaign. Even then the unctuous Dr Brash decided to take the meetings out of his diaries. He took them out.

💬 Dr Don Brash: It’s not true.

It is true. He took them out of his diaries and now he is acting holier than thou.

I say to the good Dr Brash that 10,000 bucks will not cut it. Ten thousand bucks will not go near it. He should read carefully the Solicitor-General’s findings, read carefully the Auditor-General’s findings, look at himself in the mirror, look at the size of a $10,000 cheque, and see whether he has got it to add up—because he has not done so now any more than he did with GST. He just has not got it to add up. The member declines to accept that much of the things he has paid back for are only a fraction of the totality of that party’s liability. The member continues to be in denial—just as he denied for days that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren. The member appears to be in denial.

But I can have my most fun with a piece of advertising that was paid for by the National Party. This was paid for by raffling chooks or by going to the Exclusive Brethren or the insurance agents or whomever it goes to for its money. It was paid for by someone other than the taxpayer.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Stick to the truth.

Don Brash has asked me to stick to the truth. Let me read from his own press statement: “You are the Reserve Bank Governor 2001. You can see the Government is making dumb choices that are slowly wrecking the country you love. You know that if you speak out about it you risk being sacked from the job that you love.” That is the spin. What are the facts?

The facts are that that refers to a speech Don Brash gave at the Knowledge Wave conference. I was there; the speech was boring. Don Brash said in his speech that we needed to sell more things, privatise more, and get rid of the minimum wage—all of that stuff. He is agreeing with it even now. Even now, the good Dr Brash is agreeing that that is the pathway for the country.

It is very interesting to watch a Labour Party that is in deep trouble and knows it. It is very interesting to see a Labour Party that has its back to the wall and knows it. It knows it for a couple of reasons. [Interruption] Jill Pettis should not get stuck in the fish wire. Question time today was very interesting. We saw an example of Trevor Mallard with his head down, and Michael Cullen with his head down. The Labour Party has a problem and it knows it. The problem is on two fronts, actually, and it is a very serious one. The problem for the Labour Party—as Mr Mallard knows—is showing up in its polling.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it’s not!

Oh yes it is, and Mr Mallard knows it. I have seen it, and Mr Mallard knows it. The Labour Party’s problem is a Prime Minister who is about all the party has to hold it together. She is the only glue. She came into Parliament promising high standards. Now she is “Hele Baba and the 40 thieves”. She has Taito Phillip Field, who she knows, and the journalists, the public, and the Labour Party supporters know, is guilty. Labour members know he is guilty but they cannot have an investigation because if they do the party will lose its one-seat majority. So Labour does not know what to do about that; it is just going to park that issue.

The next thing the Labour Party knows is that it has spent $900,000 of taxpayers’ money to buy an election, and it did it for one reason. A week before the election, on 17 September, Labour held a meeting to discuss its internal polls. Pete Hodgson had to tell Labour Party members the bad news—that Labour was four points behind and was not going to win.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No.

Oh yes, he did. The thing that members have to understand about the Labour Party is that Helen Clark is a political junkie, and she runs Labour’s campaigns. She does not just sit around as Prime Minister; she runs Labour’s campaigns. She signs off on every ad. She told Labour members: “We are not going to lose because we are four points behind with a week to go. We will do whatever it takes.” On 14 September Mike Smith, the Labour Party secretary, did not know that the Labour Party was going to do whatever it takes to win, so he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer and said: “Yes, we’ll be including the Labour Party pledge card in our campaign spending. They are always having it paid for by the taxpayers.” That is Labour’s second issue—its cap.

After the election he wrote to say he was rescinding that statement. Why? Because he knew that the Labour Party had to spend the money, and if it did not then it would not have won the election. So now they have a problem. They have been exposed, their backs are to the wall, they are not happy, and they owe $900,000. This is their simple problem—No. 1, they are broke. They do not have any money. They spent absolutely every dollar they could on buying that election—and every dollar the taxpayer had on buying the election, as well. So the No. 1 problem is that they are broke.

Problem No. 2 is that they cannot raise the money. They have been to Owen Glenn and he said that he would not give them any more money. And they do not have any friends in the business community, so they cannot raise the money. So they have option three. Option three is that they borrow the money. There is one reason why they will not borrow the money—and Trevor Mallard knows it well. If a Labour Government borrows $900,000 at its third term, it will be kicked for touch at the next election. Those members will not even be able to raise the $900,000 to pay back what they borrowed for the last election, let alone for the next one they want to go into. So those members have turned ugly, and this issue is now a diversion.

According to the Prime Minister, it does not matter. It is not inside the “beltway”. Well, that is pretty interesting, because that is not what the Dominion Post said this morning when it went out and asked a few people. Pip Wylie, a cafe owner in Taupō, stated: “The prime minister is wrong when she says the rest of New Zealand is not interested in [this issue] …”. Anne Spence, a 23-year-old nurse in Greymouth, stated: “We are interested. It is our money as well. As the prime minister she is supposed to care about all of us, …”—I do not think so, I say to Anne. The bad news is that the Prime Minister cares only about herself—Helen—and the 40 thieves whom she looks after. Jean Turnbull is 81, but she is not slow. She may be retired and living in Rangiora, but she stated: “The allegations of corruption and the use of taxpayer funds on Labour’s election pledge card concern me, especially [because it is our money] …”. Bernard Carroll, a taxi driver from Wellington, stated: “It’s taxpayers’ money and they should be accountable for every penny that they spend. I think [it is] a matter of principle …”. But, best of all, the award goes to Kelvin Ward. He is 74, retired, and living in Stoke, Nelson—a good constituent, no doubt, of Nick Smith—and he stated: “Yes, she’s probably right in assuming people don’t care—but I don’t really care what she says anyway.”

I have to say that John Key is not looking a well man. John Key was quite a healthy, smiley-looking man in his first term of Parliament. He looks like a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders now. Body language speaks a thousand words, and members on this side of the House noticed the body language. We know that the National Party had a very long and difficult caucus yesterday. Some of its members told some of our members that. But I would say that the body language yesterday was amazing. John Key sat there like a man isolated, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, and I suspect that very soon he will have the weight of the National Party on his shoulders.

We are still to hear from National members as to why they did not tell the people of New Zealand about $1.2 million worth of funding from the radical Exclusive Brethren religious sect in the last campaign.

💬 Dr Don Brash: No, no—tell the truth.

Dr Brash says I should tell the truth. Maybe he could tell the people of New Zealand why he told the press that he had not met with members of the Exclusive Brethren, that he did not know about the pamphlet, and that he had no idea what was coming—only to have to backtrack days later, when he was outed as having lied to the media about his meeting with the Exclusive Brethren and knowing about the pamphlet.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although no member of the National Party will defend the Leader of the Opposition, I will. One cannot accuse a member of lying in this House. I think it is important for the standards of the House. Even if the National Party is not prepared to defend Don Brash from that accusation, I ask that the member withdraw.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

The National Party weekly tried to draw comparisons with the union movement and its support for the Labour Party at the last election campaign, but there were some very key differences. Firstly, we included their spending in our electoral return; the National Party did not include the spending of the Exclusive Brethren in its electoral return. Secondly, the union movement did not put fake addresses where no one lived as the address of the reference person on its material, and it was quite clear to all New Zealanders who was producing the union movement’s material. The material from the Exclusive Brethren attacking the Greens and the Labour Party was very, very similar to the material that attacked the Greens in Australia.

Dr Brash is trying to paint himself as a man of principle and a man of guts. So why does he not have the guts to tell us about the overspending on GST? Here is the man who said that he simply forgot to pay GST. Given that he was the man who designed GST, that is a little difficult to accept. Why does he not have the guts to tell us about his close relationship with the Business Roundtable? Why does he not have the guts to tell us the truth about the Exclusive Brethren? Dr Brash claims to represent mainstream New Zealanders, and he wants to keep out immigrants who do not share mainstream New Zealanders’ values. Well, I say to Dr Brash that he should have the guts to tell us which cultures he is talking about that do not share the mainstream values of New Zealanders and should be excluded from coming into New Zealand.

This is the man who did not have the guts to say to Māori inside the wānanga what he said about them outside the wānanga in the car-park. He is a man who did not have the guts to leave the appointments with the Exclusive Brethren in his diary—and he is yet to explain that—and a man who did not have the guts to tell New Zealanders about his agenda of radical, right-wing, privatisation. He is on record as saying that he will not water down his principles to sate New Zealanders. Then why does he not tell New Zealanders that he does not care who owns our schools and he does not care who owns our businesses? He will not tell them because he cannot sell it.

On Agenda 2 weeks ago Don Brash was asked whether John Key was one of those who overspent at the last election, and he refused to confirm or deny that. I wonder whether Dr Brash is willing to clarify that in the House today.

This is a man who promised United States politicians that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime, but he did not have the guts to tell New Zealanders that that is what he would be doing.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This member has been referring to Dr Brash throughout her speech and saying that Dr Brash does not have the “guts” to do A, B, C, or D. That is unparliamentary language, and I ask that she withdraw and apologise for using that word.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Although generally today I have been working hard to have decorum in the House, unfortunately for the member, Don Brash and the National Party have put an advertisement in the newspaper suggesting that he does have “guts”. Therefore, I think it is very hard for them to say that that point cannot be argued in the House. Those members are the ones who have put his courage, his conviction, and his ability to say things consistently into the public arena. To say that they are now too scared to have that point debated in the House just defies belief.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is a debating matter, but the point is that it is a robust debate. I think many words have been used this afternoon that are in that realm, so I would ask the member to continue.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were told before that we could not use the word “corrupt”. Now we have a member who is constantly using the word “guts”, referring to Dr Brash as not having “guts”, and using that sort of language. If the word “corrupt” has been ruled out, then the word the member is using should also be ruled out. Madam Assistant Speaker, I ask for some consistency in your rulings on this matter.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I did not realise that the member was going to speak to that point again. I thought he had another point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. I will not go over my previous ruling, but it is in Speakers’ Rulings. As I said before, many words have been used this afternoon that come into the realm of robust debate, and that is certainly one of them that I am ruling does come into robust debate. There will be no further points of order on that matter.

At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the advertisement with the picture of Don Brash, and the word in dispute written very large underneath it, which says “Guts”.

Don Brash is a man who did not have the guts to tell the people of New Zealand whether he would send troops to Iraq. When asked, he said: “I would have done what President Bush did.” I have to say I wish he was a man who had the “guts” to put some policy out at some point—during the general election campaign might have been a good time—so that we could have debated it. It still astounds me that a major party in an election campaign could get away with not having a health policy. I say: Dr Brash, a man of “guts and principle”—yeah, right!

I seek leave to table the National Party advertisement with the word “Guts” written very largely and a picture of Dr Don Brash.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

When a Government agency has wide-ranging statutory powers that can be applied in situations requiring less evidence than would be necessary to secure a conviction in a court of law, it is absolutely essential that that agency is required to be fully transparent about the actions it takes. Child, Youth and Family is our legally empowered child protection agency that is able to remove children from their parents’ legal care and place them in the care of others when it believes it is in the children’s best interests.

In the last few weeks United Future has been calling on this Government to ensure that child protection in this country occurs in an environment that reflects international standards of best practice. We are asking the Government to set up an independent Child, Youth and Family complaints authority that is similar to the independent Police Complaints Authority. Our intention is not to create a culture of shame and blame within Child, Youth and Family; in fact, it is quite the opposite. Part of any credible social work environment must include the opportunity for quality assurance activities to take place.

No one envies the front-line caseworkers at Child, Youth and Family. They deal with what must be some of the most stressful casework, and they have to make some very tough calls in the interests of children’s safety and well-being. The nature of Child, Youth and Family interventions is that removing a child is only the first in a series of steps that often include family group conferences, which decide access arrangements and placement decisions. There are court appearances, psychological assessments, and the like—all with huge implications for the child, his or her parents, siblings, extended family, foster parents, and Child, Youth and Family staff themselves. Everybody has a lot invested in the outcome.

Currently, the Children’s Commissioner has the legislative mandate to investigate the decisions and actions of Child, Youth and Family as they pertain to the ongoing safety and well-being of any child or children. This is important work, and the department could well do with some additional resources to meet this obligation. However, the Children’s Commissioner does not investigate on behalf of or in the interests of adults affected by the decisions and the actions of Child, Youth and Family. In fact, parents, grandparents, those adults who are making a notification, and any other adult involved have nowhere to go if they want to complain about the way they have been treated.

To give some perspective, the Police Complaints Authority costs about $2 million a year, has seven staff, and handles about 2,500 complaints a year, of which about 13 percent are upheld either fully or partially. That represents an average of 343 cases. The rest of them either do not hold up under scrutiny, are dropped, or are settled through mediation processes.

Like most MPs, I have a huge pile of letters, emails, and documents sent to me by both family members who believe they have been unfairly treated by Child, Youth and Family and those who have made notifications to the service and have been unhappy with the response they received. I am not convinced that every case in my filing cabinet would stand up to independent examination. The fact that possibly 13 percent of cases could represent a genuine complaint is a cause for concern, and that those people have no way of having their concerns looked at in a timely way, is completely unacceptable. Recent questions to the Minister in charge of Child, Youth and Family show that the Ministry of Social Development currently does not even keep a database of complaints. It does not even know or record how many complaints have been received by the department.

Some of the families who have contacted me are afraid to complain in case they make their case management situation worse. Those fears may be irrational, but with no data kept and nowhere else for them to turn for help, it is difficult for me as a member of this House to offer those people any reassurance.

It is essential that public confidence in our child protection services is high. I think we could do better, and having an independent body would be a great place to start. I invite the Minister who is responsible for Child, Youth and Family and her staff members—who indicated, when I questioned them at the financial review of the service, that they were aware they could be doing better in that regard—to make haste in making some very important decisions. If we take the information around the Police Complaints Authority as an example, we will realise that it is not a costly exercise.

In October 2004 the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, was introduced to the House—a member’s bill in my name. I can inform the House that as of this morning I discharged that bill and have withdrawn it. I have done so, being very confident in the progress made towards addressing the issues that that bill raised and brought forward for consideration. They were to include gender identity within our human rights legislation, to put beyond doubt that there were no grounds for discrimination, and, indeed, to prohibit discrimination against those with issues around gender identity. That group would have included transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, intersex people, and any others who felt they had a gender identity issue.

I am pleased to report that upon his own initiative on behalf of the Government, the Attorney-General, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, with support from the Prime Minister, sought a clarification from the Solicitor-General. He has today provided me with a Crown Law opinion that concludes that the current New Zealand Human Rights Act, and particularly section 21 of that Act, would be inclusive of people who may have issues around gender identity, particularly the specific groups I mentioned before. They would be protected under the proviso that there cannot be discrimination on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation. This clarity will put to rest that issue for some, including the decision makers in our courts, etc. who may—and we have not had case law to date on this in New Zealand—have to consider a matter around gender identity. This opinion would give an indication and a direction on which they may base a judgment.

Discrimination still exists for transsexuals and other such people with gender identity issues in New Zealand. That was the purpose of having clarity brought about by the introduction of my bill. For example, those issues exist within housing and employment situations, and I can certainly attest, as a member of Parliament, to having received delegations of people who have pointed out that young children who are transsexuals have encountered an awful lot of problems within their schools and within their communities, because of the way they have chosen to live their lives. That is discrimination, and it is intolerable in this day and age.

I am glad this clarity has been brought to the attention of Parliament and of those in New Zealand who are interested in the subject matter. This effort has not been without work from numerous people, particularly organisations outside of Parliament. I can think of an organisation called Agender that deserves some credit, and of other transgender organisations that have watched keenly the progress of the bill for clarity around the situation. I would like particularly to thank Michael Wilson, who assisted in drafting the original bill.

I would also like to thank colleagues within the Labour caucus and many other members in the House who, in the last Parliament and in this current Parliament, expressed some support for the intention of my bill. But there was not enough support within the last Parliament or this Parliament for me to feel confident that the bill would have succeeded had it gone to a first reading; indeed, I think quite the contrary would have occurred. I guess quite venal debate might have occurred, like that after the prostitution reform and civil union legislation was passed. The debates that interested this House and the nation at that time brought up some rather distasteful references to things we had long left in the past.

I just add also that internationally—I have just returned from a conference in Montreal, and the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner pointed out in her keynote address to that high-level conference that gender identity is a vexed issue that still needs to be addressed by many jurisdictions around the world—those matters are being addressed by other jurisdictions.

It is pleasing to find, within our own human rights legislation, that this Crown Law opinion will, I hope, put beyond doubt any question in respect of the matter of gender identity protection for the transgender community, and specifically transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, and the intersex people. The whole transgender community can feel that clarity has now been gained, and that there is something that they can rest on as far as protection is concerned.

I seek the leave of the House to table, for members’ information, a Crown Law opinion dated 2 August from the Solicitor-General, which concludes that transgender people are protected under the existing human rights legislation of New Zealand.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to give this issue a considered ruling at some time later. It is to do with a matter that arises in the House from time to time—in my 20 years I have heard it raised a lot—when a member tries to accuse another member of this House of lacking courage. I have heard you, on a number of occasions, pull up members—and I have heard other presiding officers do so, as well—and say that a member cannot question whether another member is lacking in courage or say he or she has no courage, and so on. I know that people who have called someone “spineless”, “yellow”, or any of the other words like that have been pulled up immediately by successive presiding officers.

However, when I look, first of all, at the Standing Orders and then at Speakers’ Rulings, I find it very difficult to find a specific Speaker’s ruling that refers to this. A number of rulings refer to whether someone is being influenced by something outside the House by way of financial or other pressures that may be on him or her. In order that we may get some clarity and maybe even a Speaker’s ruling in the book, I would like you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to give this House a ruling as to whether a member can question, when he or she is in a debate, a member’s courage.

We have heard Moana Mackey today say the Leader of the Opposition “does not have the guts”. I think that remark stands alongside “yellow”, “spineless”, or the “jellyfish” word, and alongside all of those other words that have been ruled out from time to time. I seek a ruling from you, Mr Assistant Speaker, even if you do not give it to us now but take some time over it. If it is wrong for members in this House—and I think it has been wrong all along—to question whether a member lacks courage or has courage, then it is right that you give us a ruling that what Moana Mackey said today about the Leader of the Opposition was also outside the Standing Orders, and that she should be made to withdraw and apologise.

I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I say to him that Standing Order 116 concerns personal reflections. If any indication is given as to courage, then that, of course, is a matter that could well come within Standing Order 116, because to imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and out of order. Having heard what the member said and the ruling that was given before, I will certainly ensure that it is given further consideration.

We say that the rule of law is fundamental to the operation of our society. Just a few days ago I heard Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court talk about the rule of law. He said that one of the key aspects of the rule of law is that “The Law is superior to, and thus binds, the government and all its officials.” Yet in New Zealand at this time we are seeing that this Government is proposing retrospective legislation to validate misuse of funds—one law for the Government and another law for the general public.

The non-lawyer Dr Cullen tries to distinguish between retrospective and validating legislation. But that kind of Jesuitical distinction fools no one. Last year the Auditor-General warned political parties to be careful with their spending on the campaign. Labour ignored his warning, misused public funds, and now, retrospectively, seeks to validate its unethical behaviour. What has Labour’s response been to the Auditor-General’s review? This afternoon it has been threefold.

The first response was to try to say that if there had been a problem with unlawful expenditure last year, it might have existed for as long as 15 years. However, Mr Brady’s comments about his warnings explode that feeble defence. He warned MPs to watch their election spending, and Labour MPs ignored his warning.

The second approach, and it was exemplified this afternoon, is for Labour to step up its persecution of a religious minority. A few days ago at Te Papa, the Prime Minister and Mr Maharey gave nauseating Uriah Heep speeches about religious inclusiveness. But religious inclusiveness and tolerance are always on Labour’s terms. The Prime Minister wants tolerance for Muslims, but that does not extend to Christianity, for which she has apparent contempt. The Labour mantra about the Exclusive Brethren is a pathetic diversion. The only weird cult around here is the Labour Party caucus.

The third defence, exemplified by that mediocre speech from Moana Mackey, is what is called the “tu quoque” defence—“you too”. Labour was wrong, as usual, on these two points. Moana Mackey talked about the quality and accuracy of the National return. But the Labour return did not refer to the donations of its trade union friends. She also tried to make something of the GST issue affecting the National Party. Yet even if the GST is added in, National was still within its limits.

When it suits Labour, it is the very model of constitutional propriety. So, for example, the member for Auckland Central, Judith Tizard, said in her second reading speech on the Patents Amendment Bill on 25 June 1992 that she had a horror of retrospective legislation. On 6 December Ms Pettis said, in relation to another Act, that retrospective legislation was unfair. Perhaps best of all came from Mr Peters, whom I certainly hope has recovered from the infection caused by his self-inflicted love bites. On 15 December 1994 he said that retrospective legislation was repugnant and should be so in any Parliament. They were complaining about retrospective legislation to make minor amendments to tidy up errors—nothing like what is being contemplated today.

In Government Labour is quite different. Only a few years ago the MP for New Plymouth, Harry Duynhoven, needed fast-track retrospective legislation to let him keep his seat. Labour said this was a trifling matter, but no one can say that the pledge card expenditure is trifling. It was misappropriation of public funds, in contravention of very clear rules about how those funds should be spent. Labour’s intention to introduce retrospective legislation in these circumstances is morally and legally wrong and an affront to the rule of law. I come back to what Justice Anthony Kennedy said, and that is that “The Law is superior to, and thus binds, the government and all its officials.” The third-rate apparatchiks on the other side of the House obviously disagree. Their actions undermine the rule of law in this country. If I may I will borrow Ernest Bevin’s famous quote about his opponents: they really are lower than vermin.

Finally, let me say something about that paragon of virtue Mr Dunne. His superior manner and pretentious contributions bring to mind the phrase: “There but for the grace of God goes God.” In fact, there is no truth in the rumour that Mr Dunne wants to be pope, because being God’s vicar on earth would not be good enough for him.

New Zealand First has received a number of emails and letters in recent weeks, in a campaign to influence its voting. We have been quite saddened by the language used in emails and letters during this campaign, which appears to us to be threatening, and that recalls the language used to remember those who died serving their country during wartime: “We will remember them.” We think this is in bad taste. However, we want to quietly and respectfully remind Grey Power and these campaigners that they should remember a few things as they embark on this operation.

The first thing they should remember is that New Zealand First fought the Shipley Government tooth and nail when it tried to cut superannuation. Let them remember that New Zealand First introduced the compulsory superannuation debate, provided an extra $252 million for elective surgery, funded 32,000 more operations, and provided free influenza vaccinations for the elderly. Let them remember that New Zealand First budgeted for the removal of income and asset testing for elderly care. This was so distasteful to the Shipley Government that it overturned it when we got out of the coalition.

Let them remember that New Zealand First removed the superannuation surtax, after superannuitants were betrayed by both Labour and National on this issue.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: That’s a big one.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: My colleague says it was a big one, and it was. Let them remember that New Zealand First has worked for them by increasing the minimum rate of superannuation, up to 66 percent of the net average wage. Let them remember that New Zealand First has gained a significant increase in funding for elder care in this year’s Budget. Let them remember that the golden age card, which New Zealand First promised during the last election campaign, will become a reality by late 2007 and will provide a range of private sector entitlements and commercial discounts.

Let them remember that New Zealand First has listened to the concerns of the elderly regarding law and order, and has delivered policies to address those concerns—notably, 1,000 extra police on the beat by 2008. Let them remember that New Zealand First shares their concerns about social policy and strategic asset sales, and has put the brakes on those issues. Let them remember that New Zealand First is working for them, and will never forget them. And today we have instituted an independent, public inquiry into local government rates. That will do a darn sight more, with due respect, for rates in this country than Rodney Hide’s proposed bill.

In closing, I suggest to Grey Power that if all its members who threatened to withdraw their votes from us had voted for us at the last election, we would have substantially more than seven MPs in Parliament. I tell Grey Power that New Zealand First has taken this time, in a general debate, to remind it about those things and that, at least, Grey Power still has one party in Parliament that is on its side, and it should not take that fact lightly.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.