General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Over the last month the nation has been engrossed in debates that at their very heart demonstrate the significance of the relationship between tangata whenua and other New Zealanders. Dr Paul Tapsell, Māori director at Auckland Museum, welcomed these debates as expressing the maturity of the nation. In his article in yesterday’s paper, he reflected on the value of debating and reviewing cultural practices as a means of bridging cultural spheres. The Māori Party has eagerly accepted the challenge to immerse ourselves in the ongoing debate towards nationhood. We need to have the dialogue, to listen, to grow, and to learn.

The debates over the culture of gift-giving in Samoa, known as lafo, and the tikanga of utu or reciprocity associated with koha—indeed, the notions of altruism and social obligation found in European practices of gifting—have opened up the kōrero. What we have are notions of tikanga Samoa, tikanga Māori, and tikanga Pākehā. They followed an experience of unprecedented cultural learning represented at the tangihanga of the late Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu.

I myself have taken time to reflect on an opinion piece by Dr Ranginui Walker, who wrote about another tangihanga—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is too much conversation in the House. It is discourteous to the member speaking.

—within the Tainui confederation of tribes some 15 years ago, in 1991. Dr Walker described the tangi of one of New Zealand’s most gifted entertainers, Billy T James, in terms such as “the clash between two cultures”; “the cultural divide between Maori and Pakeha”; or “the media hype about the event by ignorant, monocultural commentators only served to inflame the situation between Maori and Pakeha”. What a huge contrast. What has made the nation willing to learn now, at the time of the passing of Te Arikinui? What were the prevailing factors that created the atmosphere of openness that paved the way for future understanding?

Much has been written about the manaakitanga of the host, Tainui waka. People have been so overwhelmed and amazed at the organisational detail that they showed to the nation—Māori and Pākehā, and the many ethnic groups of Aotearoa—and people from overseas. Their huge generosity to their manuhiri—their visitors—in opening up their tikanga and their marae to the nation has been appreciated by many. But the funny thing is that this sort of manaakitanga is expressed on marae throughout the motu, but technology enabled this occasion to be seen in real time, rather than from archival footage.

But there are many other aspects to tangihanga that make the experience so unique. As one example, one of the most special moments for myself is when I have the privilege of digging the final plot, the resting site for the deceased. It is nothing for me to jump into the hole, to feel that sense of connection, and to appreciate being so closely involved—it is the very last time one will see that person. Some whānau members find the process of digging the grave and getting on the end of a shovel to bury their loved one to be very therapeutic. In our hapū the qualification to perform this final ritual is not one linked to New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards in grave digging, using machinery, or grave collapse consolidation; the qualification we have acquired is through whakapapa—the overlapping layers of connection built on genealogy.

As a nation we must never lose sight of the value that can be gained through opening our eyes to different ways of being. In the Māori Party we have been interested in the values that Pākehā may bring to the process of death and dying, and the rules of engagement that determine how relationships develop. I have reflected on the research of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and her work On Death and Dying, which is an analysis of the process of grieving. This is an example for me of tikanga Pākehā associated with death. I wondered what my tikanga Māori regarding death has in common with tikanga Pākehā, and what was different. Kubler-Ross identified five areas: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I think the difference lies in the manner of expression, the rituals, and the processes of recounting history and further affirming the nature of the relationships between people. These things are inherent in the practices of tikanga Māori.

We need to understand the norms and values of other cultures, before relationships can be developed. The recent discussions generated from the tangihanga for Dame Te Atairangikaahu have opened the door. The challenge for us is to continue the dialogue as a nation. The Māori Party relishes the opportunity to learn from each other, and to nurture our relationships. I am confident that Te Ao Māori will continue to share as we deem appropriate. We have much to share.

I want to talk about election funding today; and I want to talk about the dishonesty, the deceitfulness, and the double standards that the National Party has portrayed right through this debate. Yesterday in the House we heard Don Brash say that the National Party did not get a dime from the Exclusive Brethren—not a dime. He was right about that—it was not a dime; it was $1.2 million, which increased National Party election spending by 50 percent. And the National Party knew right through the campaign where the money had come from and what it was there for. It is set out in a letter from the Exclusive Brethren to the Chief Electoral Office, in which the Exclusive Brethren said it wanted to put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of getting party votes for National.

Don Brash met with the Exclusive Brethren at least three times before the election campaign. When asked by the media whether he knew who was behind these pamphlets he said no. Not once, not twice, but three times he deceived the public by saying he did not know who was behind the pamphlets and where the money had come from. Finally, he had to own up to lying to the country and to knowing all along where the money had come from.

That money was from a narrow-minded, intolerant religious sect, the same sect greased up to by Chris Finlayson in the House the other night, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the Exclusive Brethren, in their narrow-minded way, think that member is an abomination because of his sexual orientation. I say to Mr Finlayson that I cannot understand his double standards on that. I have no problem with who that member is and what he is. That is not a problem for me, but it is for the members of the Exclusive Brethren, and still we get the double standards of that member talking to them—they were in the gallery wearing their scarves—and saying that this Government is unchristian.

The amount was $1.2 million, and I have here an example of the sort of pamphlet I am talking about. This one went out in my electorate. It was authorised, as the law requires, by Mr Powell of 30 Stephen Lysnar Place. We checked the telephone book and the electoral roll, and we went around to the house, only to find that no such person ever lived there. That happened up and down the country. The National Party is saying it knew nothing about the Exclusive Brethren, and is standing behind the lies and the dishonesty shown by the Exclusive Brethren all the way through.

While we are on dishonesty, let us talk about Mr English. Mr English has been remarkably quiet, but he has gone along with the accusations by the National Party that the Labour Party and other parties in the House broke the rules. We put out a commitment card. That was within the rules as interpreted by the Parliamentary Service and every other party in this House. What about this piece of paper, I ask Mr English. It states: “My commitment.” This came out during the election campaign in 2002—exactly as Labour had done. Why the dishonesty? Why the double standards of saying that Labour broke the rules, when the National Party had been doing that year after year from 1989? Double standards, dishonesty—that is what we have had from the National Party.

Then there is another thing from Don Brash. He admitted on radio the other day that 90 percent of the funds used by the National Party went through a secret trust fund. We do not know who gave the money, and we do not know what was promised by the National Party to those who gave the money. What we do know most certainly was that it was “cash for policy”. The National Party was allowing itself to be bribed by outside groups that would give it money only anonymously—people like the multinational insurance companies that had millions of dollars to gain if that party, once in Government, privatised accident compensation. One of those members opposite should get up and deny that the insurance companies were not major funders of the National Party in return for that promise—a promise that would have seen tens of millions of dollars going into private pockets. That is corruption, that is dishonesty, and that is double standards. The very thing that those people have the audacity to accuse Phillip Field of doing, they were doing for the corporates. They were selling out their souls.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but in the interests of consistency, and given that I have objected to members opposite describing members on this side in those terms, I ask the member to abide by the higher standards of the House and not to use that term again.

Absolutely. Let us use another example. Lockwood Smith asked for foreign funds so that the National Government could sell out this country’s non-nuclear policy.

Clearly, in putting up Phil Goff to speak, Labour is not taking this issue seriously. All the activities that Phil Goff referred to are subject to examination by the statutory officers of the law of this country, and any number of those activities have been looked at by those officers. Nothing that Labour members have said this week makes any difference to the facts. Like school bullies who are worried their bluff has been called and like spoilt children who have finally been told off, all those members can do is lash out.

Here are the facts. The Labour Party spent $440,000 of taxpayers’ money on its pledge card. The matter is being examined by the Auditor-General. That is a fact. The Labour Party leaked the Auditor-General’s report. That is a fact. The Auditor-General is to bring out a final report on that spending. That is a fact. The Labour Party spent the money for a purpose not appropriated for by this House. That is a fact.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Wrong, Bill.

I will tell the Labour member about the next set of facts. Before the election, the Labour Party received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, which stated that no matter who paid for the pledge card it counted as an electoral expense. So even if the Auditor-General found that the right people paid for it and the money was rightfully used, the pledge card still counts as an electoral expense. And if it counts as an electoral expense, the Labour Party broke the law and overspent in the 2005 election campaign.

Before the election the Labour Party said to the Chief Electoral Officer: “We agree that it counts.” After the election it changed its mind. In both cases—the pledge card and the overspending—it was coldly, deliberately calculated. The Labour Party thought it could breach the law and get away with it afterwards by bullying our statutory officers, by spinning with the media, and by chucking Mr Mallard’s dirt around as far as it could. Well, the public will not wear it, for two reasons. The first reason is that the public cannot abide a Government that believes it is above the rule of law. The second reason is that the Labour Party has always campaigned on its credibility, and this blows its credibility.

We say it is of a piece. The Labour Party spent $400,000 of taxpayers’ money on its own political objectives, but that is not much worse than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a tertiary education strategy that has totally failed, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on Child, Youth and Family Services, which failed, and wasting billions of dollars on a health service that has led to longer waiting lists and people being threatened with premature death, as we found out today. That is why the public is reacting against this. The Prime Minister says it is a beltway issue, and she still believes that. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks we should pack up and move on. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks the National Party will give up on this issue and on the issue of her corrupt handling of Taito Phillip Field’s corruption, and she is wrong.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just checking that you were listening at that point and heard a word that has been proscribed. I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did hear that word, thank you, Mr Mallard. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling that the word “corrupt” cannot be used in this Parliament?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am saying that “corruption” is a word that cannot be used unless it is used in connection with Speaker’s ruling 25/5. If that is done, then members have every right to use that word. Speaker’s ruling 25/5 states: “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way, but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Exception has been taken by another member, and I uphold the member’s right to do that. I have asked the member to withdraw, and Mr English has done that.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, I think you need to provide a written ruling around this issue, because in using the word as he did, Mr English is complying with the Speaker’s ruling as it is expressed. It is not appropriate for anyone else in this House to intimidate a Minister by referring to the Standing Orders, the Speakers’ rulings, or the prejudice that may or may not exist from the Chair. Rather than take action on this immediately, I believe you need to think very, very carefully about the constraints that you are now ruling that members of Parliament are under. All Mr English said was that allegations had been raised of corrupt practice. What is wrong with that, and how does it fit outside the current Speaker’s ruling?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The difference, of course, is a factual one. It is a question of what the member said and his association of two members of the House with that practice. It is very clear—the ruling dates back to 1934—that any allegation of that practice has to be put down in writing.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that we need to remind ourselves what has actually happened. Firstly, Taito Phillip Field is being investigated by the police under a precise statutory provision that refers to taking bribes. Are we not allowed to talk about that, Mr Assistant Speaker, according to your ruling? Secondly, the Labour Party has already been investigated by the police under a section of the legislation that refers directly to the words “corrupt practice”. There are no allegations; there is no speculation that Labour might be investigated—it has been. That is a matter of public record. It would be rather odd for you to rule out the ability of members of Parliament to refer to the facts of those investigations.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: These matters have been traversed at least once before during my time in the House. Members at the time had their attention drawn to Speaker’s rulings 25/5 and 26/3. Those rulings make it absolutely clear that if members are making allegations of the type that Bill English is making, there is a proper constitutional way of doing so, and that is in writing, not by veiled reference during a speech.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: This is a very important issue, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I want you to consider the particular part of the ruling that talks about “veiled suggestions”. No veiled suggestions were made in Mr English’s comments. They were factual and they were straightforward. I think you are getting into a position where your ruling will supersede the protection that members can expect from Speaker’s ruling 25/5—a ruling that, as Mr Mallard himself says, has stood since 1934. I ask you once again, Mr Assistant Speaker, to think about maybe taking some time to produce a written ruling for the House, because the writing up of the ruling as you have given it will, in fact, supersede Speaker’s ruling 25/5.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I would like to agree with Mr Brownlee. This is a very important ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, because you are being invited to change a longstanding practice. If that is to occur, it should happen in writing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable members and remind them that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality, because that would be a personal reflection and is out of order under Standing Order 116, which concerns personal reflections. I have taken on board what both Mr Brownlee and Mr Mallard have said, and consideration will be given.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, when you are deliberating on that matter, to replay the tape of what Mr English said. The argument that has been proffered to you in the House suggests he said things that he did not say, and it ignores what he actually said. If you were to deliberate and come to a decision based on the arguments that were being put forward by Mr Brownlee, you would totally miss the allegations and the transgression that Mr English made. Sometimes these points of order get diverted when people reinterpret the words that were used. The words that were used by Mr English referred to the corrupt manner in which the Prime Minister handled the corrupt practices of Taito Phillip Field. It would be easier for the House to go forward if you focused on the tape recording of exactly what Mr English said, as opposed to what his colleagues say he said and what he intended.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mark. I have heard what you said. I repeat that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality. That would be a personal reflection and out of order under Standing Order 116, when it comes to an individual member.

I will give Labour some advice, and that is to make a genuine apology, to own up, and to front up to the public. What is now mystifying the public is just why Helen Clark is digging in so hard when she is so obviously wrong.

Well—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Gutter.

We hear about the gutter from Nick Smith—the person who rolls in every gutter that is going, as well as in a few other places. [Interruption] Shall we move along to that member, Bill English, who is, allegedly, a person of great integrity. I ask Bill English for a bit of balance. If I were picking a leader for the National Party—the person with the most integrity on the National front bench—I would pick Bill English. But Bill English is the person who authorised over half a million dollars of parliamentary expenditure in 2002 on billboards, pamphlets, and cards, all of which were outside the rules according to the current ruling of the Auditor-General.

Now, I do not agree with the Auditor-General. He has not made a final ruling, but I disagree with his interim one.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about the Solicitor-General?

I actually think the Solicitor-General is closer to it. If the Solicitor-General is right, then the airfares that that member used to go to and from Nelson during the campaign in order to make speeches—[Interruption] The member did not use airfares to go to and from Nelson during the campaign? If the Solicitor-General is right, then those airfares should not have been paid for by the taxpayer. So we know there is a dilemma; there is a bit of a debate to be had.

I go back to a comment that I made in the House quite early this afternoon, and that is that members on this side value their integrity. Members on this side have had a gutsful of comments made by members opposite; we have had an absolute gutsful. What we are saying is a comment that has been made on a regular basis in this Parliament, and if members opposite, or National Party members outside, tell lies about us, we will tell the truth about them.

One of the things generally known in this House is that some things are off-limits, and some things are inappropriate, but when members opposite cast aspersions on our core values, such as on members’ integrity, then those rules do not count any more. I am telling members opposite that they have a clear choice to make.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You cheated. Come clean!

Clearly, members opposite, especially Nick Smith—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: More threats!

Clearly, Nick Smith, who talks about threats, should think about who he has threatened recently. I ask him to think very carefully about the husband whom he threatened recently—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Go on! Say the name.

No, I am not going into any further details, but Nick Smith needs to think about whether he wants to deny that, as he just did—whether he wants to get up in the House at the end of this speech and totally deny it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The expert at gutter politics has alleged that I threatened a husband—of which there are probably about 1.6 million in New Zealand. I assure the House that I have not threatened any person. I just think the member needs to be brought back to order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Smith.

I am pleased that that is on the record, because what that means, in my opinion—and it will take a little while to get the affidavits—is that the member has gone for breach of privilege.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot allege breach of privilege on the floor—that must be put in writing.

Thank you.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Withdraw and apologise.

No, there is no requirement to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has acknowledged that he said the wrong thing. He will withdraw.

I withdraw. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): He has withdrawn. I call the—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: And apologise.

No.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: You can’t tell the Speaker what to do.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I tell Mr Burton that we are demanding that the Speaker require an apology.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: You can’t demand that of the Speaker.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, we are, and if the member does not like it, he can go and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. This is a point of order and it is between the Speaker and the member taking the point of order; it is not to criss-cross back and forth across the House. The Speaker has a number of alternatives available: one is to ask a member to desist, another is to ask for a comment to be withdrawn, and another is to ask for a withdrawal and apology. I have decided that Mr Mallard will withdraw, and there the matter ends.

The next point—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have made a ruling, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It only ends, Mr Assistant Speaker, if this side of the House has decided not to take offence at the absolute guttersnipe approach of Mr Mallard. And we have not. We do take offence at that, and Mr Mallard needs to know that if he persists along this line, if he refuses to back off, if he refuses to apologise, then subsequent speakers may cause him quite a problem.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee.

Well, it may just be that we are getting close. [Interruption]

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you decided not to rule on the issue I have just raised with you—[Interruption]—and just simply to ignore it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not ignore it. I asked the member to withdraw the comment for alleging the breach of privilege, but if the member himself takes exception to it, then that is a different matter.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first is that during Gerry Brownlee’s point of order Jill Pettis screamed out, and it is a very clear offence to interject during a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Are you asking for an apology?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. The first point I raise is that during Mr Gerry Brownlee’s point of order, every member of the House heard Jill Pettis scream out. She is nodding her head and agreeing that that occurred. If a member interjects during a point of order, then that is a breach that requires the member to leave the House,

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an earlier point of order of Gerry Brownlee, Nick Smith interjected. I ask that you require the same of him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member did that, then I ask him to withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] He did not? Well, then I have to take the member at his word.

Oh, come on!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All members are honourable members. Their word is their bond.

It is a very, very sad time in the history of New Zealand politics. One of the things New Zealanders and New Zealand politicians used to be able to do was hold their heads up high when they went overseas to international forums where a lot of Governments that were incredibly corrupt would parade on the world stage. We could get up and say that the good thing about New Zealand politics was that there was no corruption—there was absolutely none.

But in the last few months two separate issues have emerged, which I think bring no credit on this House, no credit on members of Parliament, and most certainly no credit on this Government for the way it has handled them. The first concerns Mr Taito Phillip Field—a man who quite openly says he does not know how four of the houses he owned got painted. Now, I ask members of this House today to put their hands up if they have ever arrived home, walked in the front door, and gone: “My God! Someone has painted our house for us! This is fantastic; this is as good as it gets. I hope the other three have been done!”. And then I ask if they have driven off down the road to find the houses painted, have thought: “Oh, and look at the tiling on that one!”—but have not known who did it. I say: “Hands up those who have had that happen to them!”. There is not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a hand up.

I do not believe it can happen that way. If we find our houses have been painted, it is probably because we had contracted a painter, a contractor, or someone to do it, and that person would have scheduled when it would be done and how long it would take—and the owner would have paid the bill. We now know that Taito Phillip Field had all those Thais up in Samoa working for him—known now as an “orchestrated litany of Thais”. They were working for him up there in Samoa, but he says he did not know what they were doing when they were up there. So, again, it is not just about the four houses in New Zealand.

He magically went up to check his house in Samoa—about twice. He took Phil Goff and a number of other members, including you, I think, Mr Assistant Speaker. He suddenly found that his house in Samoa had had that miraculous transformation his houses had had back here in New Zealand. It had been painted and tiled! All I want to say is that that is great for New Zealand, because we should show the world how someone can get a house done up and not have to pay a cent for it.

And what has happened? That member is still a member of this House. Helen Clark, as leader of the Labour Party, demanded Denis Marshall’s resignation when the Cave Creek platform fell, even though that member could never have known that nails had been used instead of bolts. No Minister of Conservation could have known it, but she said that it was such an offence he should go.

💬 Hon Member: Really?

Oh, yes, that is what she said, and now she has a member of her own caucus behaving in what the general public think is the most despicable manner possible. Members should check what the Pacific Island papers are saying, check what the Pacific Island radio stations are saying, check what the Herald-DigiPoll is saying—and he is still there.

Now Labour has done its trick. It has clouded the issue by trying to make out: “I know other members who took a box of Roses chocolates” or “I know other members who got some flowers.”

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I took a beer.

Wayne Mapp took a beer. Oh, well, that is almost cause for resignation! Mr Mapp had a beer. If members think that that is the same as tilers working for months for no pay on four of someone’s properties and then painting those properties, then something is wrong. But that is how Labour is dealing with it.

It is the same with the funding issue. Labour has now tried to muddy the waters by using the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. I need to tell members that I am not a Christian. I am not a member of any of the faiths that other members of our team are, and I do not have a great deal of truck with what the Exclusive Brethren believe. But I will die in a ditch defending their right to hold that view and their right to express that view. This is a democracy.

We hear from Helen Clark that we need to be sympathetic to minorities. We need to be sympathetic to Muslims. I agree; we need to be sympathetic to Hindus, and to others. But suddenly we get to one other minority who she decides is not in the same category, and we can put the boot into them as hard as we like. That minority is the evil, dreadful, disgraceful Exclusive Brethren—but it is wrong to have had that view on all the rest. So now we really get to the substance. Is Helen Clark saying that a group of individuals in New Zealand does not have the right to spend its own money? No, she tries to make out that what it did was attributable to the National Party—and that will not work.

The only thing that brings this House into disrepute is a party like National that is prepared to sell its policy for money. Once a party starts heading down that track, it is a very long road for New Zealanders to gain any sense of transparency about what drives this country. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but it simply is not good enough for the Hon Dr Nick Smith to keep bringing you into the debate and demand of you where your proof is. Why you should have to prove anything is beyond me, but, in any event, it is against the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening to the interjections very carefully, because they were of great merit. There is some sort of delusion, I think, on the part of the member that the word “your” was used. That is not correct. In fact, it was “the”. So you were never brought into the issue. There simply was no valid point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that an interchange was going on between two members, and that, in itself, was what I was just about to rise on and call a breach against Speakers’ rulings, because the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. What we saw was an interchange between two members, one on each side of the House. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call.

I say again that the only thing that brings this House into disrepute is “cash for policy” tactics, which are practised by members of the Opposition.

We have seen invisible threads that pull the Opposition into line when it needs to be pulled into line, but that is not what the public wants to see. The public wants to see accountable, transparent processes. National members have spent quite a long time focusing on a couple of issues, which I will address. The first issue is in regard to our colleague Taito Phillip Field. When National members brought these issues into the House, they called for an inquiry. An inquiry was held, decisions were made, the public judged, and Taito Phillip Field lost his ministerial portfolio. What more does National want? Those members want to publicly castrate him, even though a public process of inquiry has been undertaken, the public have judged, the Minister has lost his portfolio, and the issues that need to be addressed will be.

However, what is not so public is the way in which the Opposition clouds issues. Opposition members cloud issues in terms of the level of accountability they are prepared to face up to. It is interesting that, as shown in previous contributions made by my colleague Trevor Mallard, in 2002 National was operating by the exact same rules that we were operating by. But National members are not talking about the exact same rules that we were all operating under in the 2002 election. No, they want to focus on this last election. Let me ask a question, because I think the public would want to know. What did the National Party spend on the election campaign before the 3-month period? Are National members prepared to stand up in the House and tell the public of New Zealand what they spent? Ah, no. They are quite happy to let the Auditor-General’s opinion rest on just the 3-month period. We were all judged by the same rules, certainly, but how much money did the National Party spend outside of the 3-month period on their campaign?

Every New Zealander around the country saw the big billboards throughout the country 4 or 5 months out from the election. At 3 months out, there was a different scene. How much did the National Party spend 5 months out from the election? Are they prepared to tell the public where they got the money from? Which secret trust funds did they get the money from to fund their campaign? How much was spent? That is a level of transparency that the National Party will not front up to, yet it is committed to focusing on a 3-month period, about which the rules were unclear. That is all it was. They were unclear.

The Auditor-General has certainly offered an opinion, which is a draft opinion, not a final opinion. National does not talk about the fact that Bill English used the same rules as the Labour Party operated by to fund a campaign of over $500,000. It is an interesting time, but accountability and transparency are values that should be applied to everybody. The National Party does not want to uphold its level of accountability in the same way. That is actually not the type of country we want to live in.

In terms of the issues before us and the issues raised by the Opposition, we know there are some very serious issues that we want to address, going forward. If we had the situation where secret parties were paying for our campaigns and running our Governments, nobody would know what we would end up with in terms of policies. That is not the kind of country we want to live in, but it would have been the kind of country we would be living in if National had won the election. We cannot have that. We are not going that way. There are no secret strings pulling this Government, even though they continue to pull the Opposition. Kia ora.

Today I raised a question in the House about stab-resistant body armour. I raised that question in the House because of reports in the Christchurch Press and the Dominion Post recently that the body armour that was promised has not been issued. I take the House back to 8 June 2005, when the Commissioner of Police was brought before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I raised with him the issue that it had been some 5 years, and we were still waiting for stab-resistant body armour.

Why did we raise that question? New Zealand First believes that our policemen and policewomen, who put on the blue uniform and go into the community to protect us, our communities, and our properties, are people whom we value. They are people who do a very dangerous job, and they should be looked after by the Government and by this House. We raised the question particularly because, on 8 June, when I pressed the commissioner, he gave a commitment that the armour would be issued in one year. I said to him: “If it’s not issued, will you resign?”, and he said yes.

So we raised the question today, and I showed the House the photographs I am holding up. Interesting, are they not? These are photographs of a wounded American police officer. Was not Nick Smith’s response interesting? Dr Nick Smith, the nationally renowned erratic MP, objected and stopped New Zealand First tabling some of these photos. The question is why did we table those photos. We tabled those photos to make a couple of points. Firstly, the National Party itself agrees with New Zealand First that crime is up. It agrees that violent crime is up. It agrees that youth crime is escalating out of control, and that the level of violence from youth crime is at historic levels.

A policewoman has been critically injured and hospitalised, and when New Zealand First tries to draw attention to it, National objects. National members say that the photographs are of a police officer from the United States. Well, I say to them: here is a photograph of a New Zealand police officer in hospital with his baby beside him. Now the National members are laughing—I want this in Hansard. David Carter is laughing about wounded police officers. David Carter and the National members rave on about how they support the police, but here in the House they heap scorn, mirth, and derision when we try to raise the issue of police safety. This shows how little the National Party understands about policing.

Internationally, within the police, the profession of policing is considered a family affair. A police officer knows that the crimes we see in the United States today will be visited upon the community here in New Zealand tomorrow. The warnings are there, clear for everybody to see. In 5 years the police have not seen the stab-resistant body armour issued. Now it has taken another year beyond the year in which the Government said it would deliver. We bring this issue to the House because we do not want to see a photo of a New Zealand police officer bearing wounds such as these from a knife-wielding assailant. When we do—God hope we do not, but it is obvious that it is going to take another year to get this body armour out into the hands of the troops who need it—then New Zealand First will come back to National, which considers it a laughing matter; we will come back to the Government, which has been slow and tardy in making things happen; and we will come back to the Commissioner of Police and ask him what he will do to put right the crime inflicted against the family of that police officer.

Is it not amazing? We all want so much out of the police. There are gangs running rampant, yet when New Zealand First proposes legislation to this House to outlaw gangs—to make it illegal to be a member of a gang, and to make it an offence, just as we did with terrorist organisations—people like National members laugh. They say it is not possible. The Minister of Police herself says that she thinks we are dreaming. We do have a dream in New Zealand First. We have a dream that the New Zealand police will be effectively staffed and resourced; we have a dream that the public will support the police; we have a dream that National might one day take the police seriously; and we have a dream to make it into Government one day so that we can see the serious resourcing of the police force through—something that David Carter, who is heading for another 3 years in Opposition, should be having nightmares about.

The Government is facing a perfect storm, and it is pretty clear that Ron Mark has been sucked into the centre of it.

💬 Ron Mark: I apologise to the most honourable member for interrupting his speech. I seek the leave of the House to table a photograph of a New Zealand police officer who was stabbed in the performance of his duty—a photograph of him lying in bed with his baby beside him.

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

Mr Mark could have waited. He is being sucked into the vortex of the storm engulfing this Government. The Prime Minister keeps saying that the election spending issue is some kind of beltway issue that no one out in New Zealand actually cares or gives a toss about. Labour members keep asking themselves questions in the House and having Mr Mallard give extraneous points of order, and they think that this will all go away.

What do Labour members take New Zealanders for, and what do they take the press gallery for? Do they think that we are fools? The answer is—absolutely no. If Labour members need some kind of a constant reminder of this, then they only need to read today’s New Zealand Herald. What did the Prime Minister have to say about that? She said she does not read the New Zealand Herald any more. Well, who can possibly believe that? Do members know why she does not read the New Zealand Herald? It is because she has censors.

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am listening very carefully to what Dr Mapp is saying, and he is completely misrepresenting what the Prime Minister said in the House during question time today. She said that that piece of information had not passed her desk that day. The member is completely misrepresenting that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating issue.

What an absurd point of order. It shows the desperation of Labour members that they have to use every little parliamentary device to try to avoid the truth.

Well, let me tell the member what the New Zealand Herald stated today: “If the parties cannot distinguish between bona fide information and blatant electioneering, they should not be entrusted with funds for the former.” It also stated: “Now Labour has dredged up National material from the election before”—it was 2002, for heaven’s sake—“the rules were clarified.” What did the paper say about that? It stated: “It is all a bit desperate.”

💬 Sue Moroney: What law change was this?

Sue Moroney over there is desperate and dateless. If Labour members think they can fool the public by dredging up something from 2002, they are just dreaming. Actually, Labour members were told by the Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer last year—literally within weeks or months of the election—to be careful and to not use the money allocated for parliamentary purposes for electioneering. Labour members know the truth of that.

Do people know what Labour members’ desperate refuge is at the moment? Those members say that the draft Auditor-General’s report is just that—a draft. They say it is not a final report, so who could possibly believe it, and they ask who would accept a draft report. Those members know the truth. They know that the train is coming down the track. They are standing on the tracks ready to be bowled by it.

I tell those members over there, one of whom is a Minister, to get their cheque books out. They should write out that cheque, because that is what the public expects. Frankly, Ministers of the Crown should be writing out much bigger cheques than should new Labour members of Parliament who have just come in, as hapless and hopeless as they are. The public has one demand for this Government—pay it back. Those members can do it. The public is saying that Labour should not use public money to pay the money back. The Government should not use some trickery or chicanery, which it is likely to try to get up to, to try to avoid its responsibilities.

One of the things this Government always went to the public on was that it was responsible, it listened to the public, and it took action. I guess that is the sort of thing a new Government says before it is tired in office and before the arrogance has seeped in. That was almost a lifetime ago—it was 7 years ago, and the arrogance has seeped in now, has it not? It is no wonder that Marian Hobbs decided to decline to be in Cabinet. She said she did not want to have a bar of a Cabinet that would do that sort of thing. I say at least one thing to Marian—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name.

Ms Marian Hobbs’ cheque will be smaller than that of the honourable Minister Nanaia Mahuta, but in both cases those members have to do their duty, which is to be honest with the public and to pay back the money.

Labour members also thought they could duck and dive on the issue of Mr Field. I was, frankly, quite amazed, given the Prime Minister’s disowning of Mr Field, that we would have an honourable Minister of the Crown in this Chamber today defending him. Actually, we have news for her. Mr Ingram said that the invoices cannot be believed. There is a police report, and justice will be done.

Spare me! Talk about collective amnesia!

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Wayne Mapp with a cheque book!

Let us talk about the cheque book. Let us talk about the $1.2 million cheque. That was a big cheque. Let us talk about a National Party leader who did not know there was a $1.2 million cheque from the Exclusive Brethren floating around. I tell members that David Henry certainly knew about it. If we are to talk about scrutiny and media scrutiny, let us look at that.

I remind the House of an email sent on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 to one David Henry, with the subject heading of “Electoral Act 1993”, and stating: “Dear David”—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would the member please continue.

I hope that is added to my time, Mr Assistant Speaker. The email states: “Dear David, many thanks for your phone time today and for making time available Tuesday next 9 a.m., your office. Those attending the meeting will be Mr Simmons, Mr Win, Mr Goudie, Mr Hickmott”—all men—“to assist in the process. We represent a group of Christian businessmen”—what a misuse of the term, but never mind—“concerned as to the course and direction of the current Government. Accordingly, we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of ‘getting party votes for National’ as this is the only way change will come about. Our programme involves extensive publications throughout New Zealand, with a theme showing and demonstrating mistrust in the current Government and building trust in a Brash-led National Government. We write seeking clarification and direction re the election funding issue, specifying that anything we do does not compromise National’s funding position. Typically, does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy? Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published? Is there any legality prohibiting us printing ‘Vote National, Vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on these, and can it be done without compromising National’s funding position? To what extent can we legally advise, direct, assist, communicate to others with National MPs and candidates? We would appreciate your directives on the above and any other legal points you think are appropriate.”

Then I have a report from a TV3 news clip dated Monday, 5 September: “Reporter: Do you know who is responsible for the pamphlets? Dr Brash: I don’t.” Another report, from Tuesday, 6 September, states: “Presenter: Who’s doing the nasty pamphlets? Dr Brash: I don’t actually know, Paul. One thing I do know: it’s not the National Party.” Further, on Wednesday, 7 September: “Dr Brash says he met with representatives of the Exclusive Brethren church about a month ago.” I have this report, as per the Television New Zealand website: “Presenter: Did they tell you about their plans for the pamphlet drop? Did they tell you anything about that? Dr Brash: OK. (walks away).” On Thursday, 8 September, Dr Brash said: “I knew they were going to use some pamphlets attacking the Government, and I said ‘Tremendous’.” My source is 95bFM on 8 September, from transcribed audio. On Friday, 9 September, when asked why he had not owned up to his knowledge of the pamphlets sooner, Dr Brash said: “I wasn’t asked whether I knew about it.”

Does anyone in this country believe that the National Party stumbled across a golden cheque of $1.2 million from some so-called Christian businessmen and did not know anything about it? Does anyone in this country honestly believe that, in terms of the pamphlets that came into people’s letterboxes? In my electorate they even arrived in my personal letterbox on election day, stating: “Vote for a party that can actually change the Government. Your party vote is critical; use it wisely. Change the Government to one that cares. Use your party vote.”, and so on and so on. If we are to talk about credibility, about paying the money back, and about using a cheque book, does anyone believe that National members did not know about that? The other question we are asking National members today is to tell us, please, what money they got from insurance companies and from the Insurance Council.

The first comments I want to make concern the rather stupid comments made about 10 minutes ago by the New Zealand First member Ron Mark, when he stood up and modelled himself as a latter-day Martin Luther King and said he had a dream to be in Government. I take this opportunity to remind the member that he has been in Government twice. He was in Government between 1996 and 1998. He and his leader were so unstable that they could not sustain the pressure and they pulled out of that. And the member is in Government now, supporting the corruption on the other side of the House.

💬 Martin Gallagher: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on, and to rule on, if you will, whether it is appropriate for a member on the opposite side of the House to reflect on the stability—presumably mental or otherwise—of the Rt Hon Winston Peters or Mr Ron Mark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a frivolous point of order. The member’s time will start again.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was commenting on the comments made by Ron Mark, who said he had a dream to be in Government. I was taking the opportunity to remind the House that he is in Government now, supporting the corruption on the other side of the Chamber.

Ron Mark can come into the House and talk about police resources and stab-proof jackets, but he has the ability to make sure that contract is delivered on immediately. He has the ability to do so, and, if he cannot make progress, then he should have the gumption to pull his vote from that Government and let the people of New Zealand decide how happy they are with the level of sleaze and corruption we are seeing at the moment.

In the time I have been in this House we have never seen things so low. Helen Clark is up to her neck in the issue of whether the Labour Party used $446,000 of taxpayers’ money to print a pledge card that went into the letterbox of every New Zealander. That broke the rules. That was stealing money from taxpayers. Helen Clark’s feeble attempts day after day to try to say she is not responsible for that, and her attempt to blame Heather Simpson, and, today, Trevor Mallard, and everybody else but herself, will not be accepted by the people of New Zealand.

The people of New Zealand know better. A recent poll in the New Zealand Herald—a paper that today we learnt the Prime Minister of this country does not bother to read; yeah, right!—stated that over 80 percent of New Zealanders surveyed say that Helen Clark and the Labour Party should pay back the money they stole from the taxpayers. They should pay back that $446,000, and pay it back quick. That is what makes democracy work in this country.

When Helen Clark came into this House as Prime Minister in 1999 she said she would restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament. That is what Helen Clark said. But what she is doing today is destroying the integrity of this Parliament and certainly destroying the integrity of every member of the Government, including New Zealand First and MP Ron Mark.

If members think that scandal is not enough, then what about Taito Phillip Field? Where was he today at question time? When is he attending to his constituents in his electorate office? He is not there because Helen Clark has told him to go on painting leave. He is repainting the four houses that he had painted by exploiting Thai overstayers on the promise of giving them residency in this country. That is where Mr Taito Field is—slapping the paint on his four houses with his paintbrush. He is not here serving his constituents, but he is collecting full pay. How appropriate is that?

Helen Clark organised the Ingram report. It cost half a million dollars. She designed the terms of reference so that the real questions would never be answered. When the report was tabled in the House, she said that was the end of the matter, that it had been tidied up once and for all. Well, where is Mr Field? If the matter has been tidied up once and for all, why is he not working for his constituents? I have another question. If the matter has been tidied up once and for all, why are the police investigating him?

There are further questions to be asked about Mr Taito Phillip Field. I say that at this stage Helen Clark should demand the resignation of that member and go to the people of New Zealand with a by-election. That is what should happen—she should let the people of Māngere decide how happy they are to have that member, who has exploited Thai nationals to have his four properties painted, not to mention his house in Samoa. And the other question that needs to be asked, while we are talking about the sleaze around this Government, is about what role the former Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, played in approving the final residency status of those Thai nationals.

Well, it is no wonder that member, David Carter, is not in Government when he thinks he can bellow his way, for effect, through a speech that has literally no substance. It is no wonder he is still sitting on the benches opposite. I will try to restore a sense of decorum to this general debate, because a lot of allegations have been swirling around the debate here today.

The public do deserve to know the truth. The public deserve to know about the pamphlets that were sent out prior to the last election. Transparency is needed around the publication of pamphlets, and I have some of those pamphlets here. They were circulated around the Cambridge area and the Morrinsville area, where I was campaigning as a candidate for Labour at the last election. This one reads: “Health care—who cares?”, and it is printed in blue and white, which immediately makes one suspicious. “Change the Government”, it states, “to one that cares—use your party vote.”, and there is a big blue tick. Who distributed this pamphlet?

Well, it was distributed by an organisation called “NZATH”. I had never heard of it. Who was “NZATH”? On this pamphlet it says: “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”. I had been working in and around the health sector for a long time, but I had never heard of that organisation. Immediately, that made me suspicious. Who were these people who were asking people, with a blue tick, to use their party vote correctly on the eve of the election—the “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”? It turned out that they were Exclusive Brethren. They were telling people in Cambridge to use their party votes, yet they tell their own members not to go and use their party votes. That is not transparent; that is not democracy; that does not sound like bedrock values to me.

This pamphlet was designed to try to get National in to Government—and it failed. The New Zealand public saw through its $1.2 million secrecy. The funders did not put their names on the pamphlet, would not say who they were, and made up a name: “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”. It is an organisation that no one involved in the health sector had ever heard of—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Back the unions!

Unions put their names on materials they distribute. People can say: “Yeah, that’s right—that is from the Council of Trade Unions; we know where that is coming from.” But in relation to the “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”, guess what? The funders were the Exclusive Brethren, an organisation that does not like to give women their rights. I think the women of New Zealand should be deeply concerned about that, because that was where the funding for the National Party’s campaign was coming from.

I have here another pamphlet that was going around at the same time. This one is targeted at senior citizens, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Who is this pamphlet from? It is also trying to convince people that their party votes are critical and to use them wisely, with a blue tick. Who was this pamphlet distributed by? It also came from the Cambridge area. Well, it was distributed by a group called “Fellow New Zealanders Deeply Concerned about the Care of our Elderly”. I had never heard of that organisation either, but it turned out—guess what—it was the Exclusive Brethren, hiding behind a made-up name and not saying who they were. The pamphlet was targeted at the elderly of this country, to try to trick them into voting for a National Government. That is not transparency, and we need real transparency before we arrive at the next election.

I want to issue a challenge, because some of these pamphlets came from the area where I live. I am a person from that electorate, and I think the voters in that electorate deserve to know what the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren was in the National Party campaign in the Waikato. What was its extent? The only honest thing that I think was done by the Exclusive Brethren in that campaign was that they fronted up—after Don Brash had tried to deny it all—and said: “Here are the seven of us. This is what we look like and, yes, it was us.” They eventually fronted up. They tried to hide behind all those sorts of phrases, but they eventually fronted up. I would like them to come clean about Waikato, and to say how much money they put into National’s campaign in that area. I would like them to tell us how many of them were involved in the shocking push-polling that was going on in the Waikato in the time leading up to the election, and I would like them to tell us how much money they put into the hoardings that were displayed in the Waikato. However, the campaign did not work.

The unions, quite clearly, say “Here we are. This is a pamphlet from the Council of Trade Unions; here are our views and opinions.”

An interesting question was just raised by the member Sue Moroney, about putting money into campaigns. I think we must remember that this issue is not about the Exclusive Brethren, this issue is not about National, this issue is not about pamphlets—signed, or otherwise—this issue is about the Labour Party using taxpayer money illegally to fund its election campaign. That is all this argument is about.

All this flailing around by Labour members is like fish dying in a pond with the tide running out and their life-giving water ebbing away from them. The more desperate they get, the more they lash out. Is it working? No, it is not working, because nothing they can say, or their supporters can say, can detract from the facts. The facts are—for the benefit of members sitting opposite—very, very clear. The Labour Party spent—and I will say this slowly so it sinks in—$440,000 of taxpayer money on its pledge card. It was not its own money; it was not money donated to it; it was taxpayer money—end of story. Labour is being investigated by the Auditor-General—full stop. The Auditor-General has written a draft report saying that the Labour Party spent taxpayer money on electioneering, which is against the electoral rules—full stop. It is about the Labour Government and the Labour Party spending taxpayer money.

If the final report of the Auditor-General shows that Labour acted unlawfully, what should it do? Well, it is very simple: Labour should pay it back. All the games in the House—and we have seen them today—all the sniping by Labour, and all the attempts to divert attention from the facts, are just a desperate attempt to divert attention away from its dodgy, dodgy decision to spend $440,000 of taxpayer money on its election campaign. And these are the people who govern our country! What is at question here is the political integrity of the Government.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply wish to ask that member a question: how much did National pay, 5 months out from the election—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. Frivolous interjections are out of order, and they can lead to disorder. The member will stand and apologise.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I apologise.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the situation.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is another point of order. I note that the three members who are sitting over there are not in their correct seats. They are continuing to barrage and interject when we have a very fine speech being given by my colleague here. The Standing Orders are very clear that a member cannot interject from a seat at which that member has an advantage over the position where the member normally sits. We have three members over there who are incessantly carrying on with those interjections against my colleague.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Tisch. I remind members that under Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1 they cannot move to facilitate interjection.

Just for my own information, in relation to the last couple of points of order you have awarded that the member might start from the beginning. I wonder whether you will be according me the same courtesy.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will consider it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In the meantime I thank members opposite for illustrating the very point I have been making in the House today. Try as they might to distract attention from what essentially we are talking about, they cannot. There is no getting away from the fact that it does not work, and that what is at issue here is that the Labour Party spent $440,000 of taxpayer money on its election campaign.

From where I sit, on the back benches, the behaviour during question time today from the Government benches was nasty and disgraceful, and I have to say that that is typical of the Labour Government. Well, I have news for this Government. The public will not accept a Government that believes it is above the law. The Government must acknowledge that it has misspent taxpayer money, and apologise. What must it do next? Pay it back. All the Government’s personal threats—and I am referring to Mr Mallard—and unpleasant innuendoes and shouting will not change the facts.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.