General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is the week that New Zealanders learnt that what they had known for a long time was, in fact, true—that Helen Clark considers her Government to be above the law. She believes that whatever her Government does, does not need to be scrutinised by the law in this country. Further, she believes that if her Government does something, then it most certainly cannot be unlawful.

This all goes back to the very longstanding statement made by the Prime Minister some years ago, when she said that by definition she could not leak. Do members remember that? It was right at the very beginning of her term as Prime Minister when she said she was above the law. Today she has confirmed it again in the House by saying Labour will not repay the $446,000 it stole out of the taxpayers’ purse to pay for its election pledge card.

Let us get some of the history of this in order. There had been concern after the 2002 election about the way in which some parliamentary funding was used. Throughout 2003 the Parliamentary Service Commission met—Dr Cullen was part of it, a number of National members were part of it, and the late Mr Donald from the Green Party was part of it. There was a recommitment to the rules of how expenditure should be used. In addition, it was made abundantly clear that if parliamentary funds were misused, then responsibility for those funds and the paying back of those funds lay with the party leader and the members of that party. So we are not talking about the Labour Party having to go out and get the $446,000; we are talking about the Labour members of Parliament having to get that $446,000.

I want people to tell us how many members on the Opposition side of the House have overspent budgets accidentally in the past and have been required to write a cheque to pay the difference. There are quite a number, and I will stick my hand up—I am one of them. In 10 years I have only ever done it once. I overspent my parliamentary budget and I paid it back with a personal cheque. That is what the Labour Party members should be doing. But instead they have the Prime Minister out there saying: “The rules are the rules, and the rules are what I make them, and the rules say—because I made them so—we didn’t do it.” Well, that is not going to wash with the 81 percent of New Zealanders who say they should pay the money back.

I ask Labour members why they are taking this position. Why do they not just pay the money back? It is because they are so convinced that they are the only group that could govern this country. It does not matter that we are going nowhere; it does not matter that we are slipping behind the rest of the world; it does not matter that all of their measures are a mess; they are going to do what it takes to stay there.

Mr Maharey will recall that a once-great Labour leader said that New Zealanders had a right to good health and good health services. Have they got those now under a Labour Government? No, they have not. He said they had a right to a good education and good education services. Have they got those? He said they had a right to good housing and access to clean housing. Have they got those, with those waiting lists? He said they had the right to be secure in their own country. Which people feel secure in this country when they read the newspapers at the end of the weekend, and see some incompetent like Mr Anderton is encouraging the drug industry in this country? He said they have a right to feel secure as a nation. We do not need to ask the question there, because the answer is abundantly obvious. Those were five rights propounded across this country by the great Norman Kirk, and this Labour Government has squandered that legacy. It has no right to stay there.

I point further to the extraordinary position that we have of Mr Hodgson, on Monday, saying on the radio that Labour would not pay the money back. He then headed into his ministerial office, emailed the district health boards around the country that had overspent on treating people with health needs, and told them that they had to pay it back. I say to Mr Hodgson that is a double standard and there are some answers he should give this House.

It is good to follow on from the leader of the National Party, and it is also interesting to note the way that National always has to turn to a Labour politician to be able to find something majestic to say.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just say that despite there being no demur from National members, it is not right for the Minister on his feet to refer to the present cited incumbent as the leader of the National Party, when he is not and never will be. But I was astonished that nobody on that side protested.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will correct that—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s allowed to do that, is he? You are just going to put up with that.

Shadow Leader of the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the general debate it has been a longstanding practice that members do not interfere with and interrupt a brief 5-minute speech. I would have expected, after the non-point of order from Mr Peters, that you would have pointed that out and given some ruling of that sort. That is what I wish you to make plain to the House, and I ask you to bring Mr Peters to order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): If the member had listened, he would have heard that I asked the member to withdraw and apologise, but there was so much noise coming from that side, and he did not listen.

It is always striking that when National members want to find something majestic to say about this country, they go where? They turn to a Labour leader. There was not one single National leader they could turn to, for a quote such as the one Gerry Brownlee raised in his speech. I say to Mr Gerry Brownlee that Norm Kirk was a Labour leader. Norm Kirk was one of us; Gerry Brownlee is no Norm Kirk.

Over the last few weeks, there has been a prolonged, very loud, and often vitriolic debate about election spending. Given the nature of that debate, it has been quite hard at times to get the facts on the table, but I want to do that today. Labour is saying that it is rejecting National’s accusations of inappropriate election spending, because we have played by the rules. Indeed, all parties in this House, over a number of elections, have played by the rules. Those rules are very simple. They allow for Parliamentary Service funding to be used during an election period—as long as the material produced does not ask for votes.

A great deal has been made of the fact that there were changes in 2003. Let me say what those changes were. They amounted to putting the parliamentary crest on anything that was funded by Parliamentary Service money and—not or—putting the address that had to be referred to. Parties have played by those rules. They played by those rules in 2005. It is because Labour played by those rules that we are at pains to point out that over a whole range of elections, all parties played by those rules. It therefore makes sense to say that Bill English was able to produce a commitment card in 2002 under those rules. Labour produced one in 2002; it was reasonable for us to produce that card in 2005, because nothing of substance had changed. Either both cards are wrong or both cards are right. We are not saying that two wrongs make a right. We are not saying that. We are saying that we played by the rules, Bill English played by the rules, and what we want is consistency of rules.

If someone does not like those rules, they can change them, but let me just say that what the police had to say, I think, provides a reasonable guide. Having looked at these issues, I say that the context for a complaint would be an amendment to the Parliamentary Service rules for advertising—that is, clarification of the rules. There can be no case for suddenly saying, after the fact, that people should have behaved in a different way. That would be wrong.

Alongside those issues, some other things have been of concern. The Exclusive Brethren acted in a way that is not acceptable in a democracy. They spent a lot of money secretly supporting the National Party. My colleague Phil Goff pointed out that they lied about policy. They lied about the Labour Party defence policy. Now they complain they are being attacked—and, yes, they are. But as religious studies lecturer Peter Lineham said: “They deserve everything they get.” It is naive for the Exclusive Brethren to think they can come into politics, lie about people’s policy, attack them in their electorates, seek to overthrow them in their electorates, and not have a robust defence put up by the people they attack.

There is concern, too, about donations to parties—donations that are not revealed. There are suspicions that people with a lot of money are buying policy, or perhaps asking for a change of policy. There are worries, for example, that accident compensation policy, which National promised to change if it became the Government, may well have backing from people who have something to gain if there is a change of Government. Third-party funding and anonymous donations are a worry in many countries, and they are now a worry here.

Well, one thing we do have to admire about Labour is its dexterity of explanation. In the last 3 weeks we have seen Labour shift position on this issue two, three, and four times. When Steve Maharey gets up—a week after launching a full-scale attack on the National Party—and starts offering explanations to the people of New Zealand, then we know that Labour is on the downhill slide. More important, Labour could at least have picked a Minister to give the explanation—that it was working within the rules—who did not go red and smile when he said it.

Steve Maharey knows, as does every intelligent member of the Labour Party front bench—so that is probably Steve Maharey—that Labour has broken the rules and is behaving like a Government that thinks it is above the law. The public of New Zealand just will not swallow it. At the end of the day, the way these things are dealt with is to front up, say one got it wrong, repay the money, save a shred of credibility, and try to move on. But to offer up the explanation: “We’ll legislate because the Auditor-General got it wrong.” will not wash well during the selection process for the next UN Secretary-General. Organisations like that are not interested in explanations from Parliaments like ours in New Zealand that simply say they will not pay the money back. The remedy is to pay the money back.

The Auditor-General has made it very clear that the National Party and the Māori Party have exercised that remedy in the appropriate way. At this point in the process, that was quite an extraordinary statement for the Auditor-General to make. Effectively, it signalled to the Labour Party that the way through the problem is just to pay the money back. That is a very straightforward and simple approach spelt out in black and white.

The Labour Party was warned twice about the spending cap. On both occasions it chose to ignore that advice, then, when it got it wrong, it took money from the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand—the workers; the very people out there whom Laila Harré is working for, right now. Labour took their money and applied it—knowing that it could not do that under the law—to purchasing and distributing the pledge card. That is a practice that the electoral legislation describes as corrupt. The simple way to save face is to write out the cheque. Labour should just write out the cheque and let Parliament, the country, and the workers of New Zealand get on with it.

Phil Goff and Annette King sit pained as this process draws out, just as they sat pained through the Taito Phillip Field process as that drew out. All the while, Phil Goff and his caravan in Mt Roskill are waiting, waiting, waiting for the appropriate moment when he and Annette King can finally realise their dream to run the Labour Party. Yet Annette King came to this House today and said that the police recruitment programme was working. Well, when the height that a recruit has to scale has been dropped to 4 feet, I am all for Lindsay Tisch joining the police! For her to say that that will work is not going to make it. I tell each member of the Labour Party to write out a cheque for $8,600 each and be done with it. Be done with it! Labour should pay the money back, let New Zealanders get on with living their lives, and stop pretending that laws apply to everybody else in New Zealand except for those members of the Labour Party who are desperate to hang on to power. I say to Labour that the clock is ticking—pay the money back.

The member who has just resumed his seat has become more and more shrill, more and more strident, more and more florid, more and more repetitious, and more and more wrong. Labour does not believe it is fair, or proper, or natural justice to change the rules after the event. We do not believe it is reasonable to change the rules retrospectively or to reinterpret the rules retrospectively. That is not OK in terms of legislation, and it is not OK in terms of rule making. Furthermore, the Labour Party—and every other political party in the House—undertook similar, or exactly similar, spending in 2002 as it did in 2005. That spending was validated by the Auditor-General. Indeed, as it happened, it was validated by the same Auditor-General who is the Auditor-General today.

In 2002 Labour had a pledge card; in 2002 National had a pledge pamphlet. They were both deemed acceptable, after the event, by the Auditor-General. In 2005 Labour had another pledge card, and the National Party made no such expenditure. The reasons for that I will explain in a minute. So the parliamentary funding that applied in 2002, and that was OK in 2005, was applied in an exactly similar way by the Labour Party, yet the Auditor-General has a draft opinion, which was that things are not as they should be—as if they were as they should be, in 2002. You see, there were rule changes between 2002 and 2005.

My colleague Steve Maharey has pointed to one of the rule changes—that is, the addition of a parliamentary crest. What he has not done is to point to the other rule change, which was the more substantive change, but it loosened the rules and did not tighten them. That is to say, if the 2005 rules are to be interpreted as the draft Auditor-General’s report would have us interpret them, then the 2002 rules must be even more tightly interpreted, and National’s 2002 expenditure—and, for that matter, Labour’s 2002 expenditure—was even further outside the rules than the 2005 expenditure was.

Why is this issue of rule-change such a confusion to the public? It is because the National Party wants it to be. Dr Brash, who either did not read the rule changes or decided himself to interpret them according to how he wishes, went on the attack, saying that the changes to the rules made Labour’s 2005 expenditure illegal. It actually did the opposite. It loosened the rules for 2005, compared with those in 2002.

Why has National decided to confuse the issue in other respects? Why is the National Party saying the Auditor-General sent a report to parties in June 2005 regarding a tightening-up of the rules before the election?

Actually, the Auditor-General did no such thing. That report is public. The report is clear, even at the bottom of the first page of the foreword, that the Auditor-General did not intend that there be any changes for the 2005 election, because he expressly asked that it be looked at after the election, and that if there was to be a new framework, it be developed after the election. So there is the National Party running confusion about rules, and running confusion about the Auditor-General’s 2005 report. Why? It is because National wants to create confusion.

This is the same National Party that voted for the 1993 Electoral Act provision that stated that if people donated under $10,000 they could remain anonymous, but if they donated above $10,000 to any political party, they must put their name into the public arena. National voted for that legislation in 1993—I was on the select committee that devised that legislation. National then set up trusts to frustrate that legislation, so much so that 92 percent of its entire budget went through that laundering process. It is not OK to vote for legislation in the House, then to set out actively to frustrate it in reality.

That was the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, who is saying to doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals that they have to pay the money back. But when it comes to the Government, he says it writes the rules, so it will take public money, use it wrongly, and not have to pay it back. What we witness in this country today, sadly, is just one case after another of the gross abuse of power by this Labour Government. It is trampling all over the independence of statutory officers like the Auditor-General, it is trampling all over the Chief Electoral Officer—the referee for our free and democratic country—and it is stomping all over the independence of the Solicitor-General.

Today the Government says that regardless of what the Auditor-General says, it followed the rules. That is a bit interesting, because a few days ago the Government said it would not decide whether it would pay the money back until the Auditor-General gave his final ruling. Now the Government says it does not give a stuff what the Auditor-General says and it will not pay the money back. I say to the members of this arrogant Government that every New Zealander knows the common-sense fact that this pledge card, issued 2 weeks prior to the election, was part of Labour’s election campaign. To pretend anything different from that is to treat New Zealanders with disdain.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s exactly the same as National’s.

I say to Lianne Dalziel that it is really interesting that Mike Smith wrote to the chief returning officer 2 weeks before the election to say that Labour would accept that ruling, and that the pledge card expense would be included in its election return, only to backtrack on that afterwards.

But it is not just in the area of electoral law that this arrogant Government tramples all over independence. Today we have seen the sacking of the chairman of the Electricity Commission. Do members remember that Mr Roy Hemmingway was appointed by this Labour Government? He was interviewed personally by the Minister of Energy. I want to read what he had to say today, for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. “I can only conclude that I am being removed from office because I stood up to the government as an independent regulator should. I have insisted that regulatory decisions be on the basis of the law and the facts and not on what politicians want.” Mr Hemmingway says that this Government has been interfering with the independence of not only the Auditor-General but also the Electricity Commission.

Mr Hemmingway goes on further to state: “I was promised that the Electricity Commission would be independent of the government’s wishes. This has not turned out to be true. Regardless of what it says, this government has not trusted regulation to deliver the outcome that only good regulation can …”. He goes on to state: “Politicising electricity decisions will hurt investor confidence in the sector and result in an even more confusing muddle of policies than now.” We have an awful mess within the electricity sector. It is failing on every front. The lights are going out in Auckland, prices are going through the roof, greenhouse gas emissions are growing at the fastest rate of those in any developed country, and now the Government is shooting the messenger—the electricity commissioner—who has attempted to do his job competently.

But the real worry is the way that this Government is tearing up the constitutional fabric of our democratic society. We have independent officers like the electricity commissioner, the Solicitor-General, and the Auditor-General to keep this country honest. Labour says that what it says goes, regardless—that it will abuse its powers. Whether it is with regard to the Electricity Commission, to electoral law, to speeding motorcades, or to forged paintings, this Government believes it is above the law. It is time New Zealanders stood up and said: “Enough is enough!”. Why do we have, in a sector as important as the electricity sector, the Government trampling all over the independence of the Electricity Commission? That is a disgrace. This Government is rotten to the core.

The proposals from the four metropolitan mayors and the One Auckland Trust to form a new “super city” across the Auckland region are an affront to democracy. I find it incredible that even some members of the current Government, including the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, are countenancing such a move, involving as it does the abolition of the Auckland Regional Council, the forced restructuring of up to seven councils into a much smaller entity, and the possibility of a greater Auckland council consisting, at least in part, of non-elected representatives. This is one of the most barefaced bids for power by the few over the many that I have seen in my political lifetime. I do not know why the One Auckland Trust and the mayors seem to think the people of Auckland will swallow this particular dead fish whole, without looking at what is really going on.

Sure, there is plenty of discontent over the size of rates increases and concern over slow progress on things like our transport infrastructure, but it is incredible that some of those currently in power think citizens’ valid concerns over those things can be translated into a will to lose most of their rights to democratic participation in local government. It is also a myth that somehow the “super city” proposal will lead to a decrease in rates. In fact, the inevitable massive bureaucratic restructuring—and we have seen heaps of those before—and the bottomless trough of public money that will go to consultants are, in fact, likely to lead to greater rather than lower cost to ratepayers.

The Green Party believes that the ability of people to participate in the governance of their local communities should be maximised, not minimised. We will end up with a greater Auckland council run by fiat by a kind of corporate board that governs Auckland in the interests of mainly rich, white, powerful men. The interests of tangata whenua, Pasifika peoples, women, refugees and migrants, low-income people, and their sectoral and geographical communities are unlikely to get any look-in, at all. Nor will the interests of those living in rural and outlying localities like Pukekohe, Wellsford, Muriwai, or all the others be likely to get much chop from a “super council” that is focused on promoting the interests of a Queen Street - oriented group of mayors and businesspeople.

The move to get rid of the Auckland Regional Council is an equally dangerous part of the new proposals. The Auckland Regional Council plays a crucial and balancing role in providing Resource Management Act functions, including regional planning in critical areas such as air, water, transport, and urban limits. The metropolitan mayors and the One Auckland Trust do not say anything about what will happen to the physical environment of our region, should their grandiose plans come to fruition. I have a strong feeling that a big part of the motivation for what is going on right now is, instead, to try to find a way not only to grab the Auckland Regional Council’s resources but also to get rid of an obstacle to unfettered growth beyond the current urban perimeters. With the advent of climate change and peak oil, cities of the future will need every bit of environmental and social sustainability they can achieve—that includes Auckland. This proposal heads straight in the opposite direction to that. Like a number of other commentators over the last week, I believe that this is really a naked attempt by the big-city mayors to control all regional planning, to get their hands on strategic regional assets, and to widen the rating base for the Rugby World Cup stadium.

What is the role of the Government in this? I was stunned to read on Friday that Judith Tizard, Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, actually welcomes the mayors’ proposal and appears to be buying into their agenda. I hope that she and other Labour MPs will look at what is going on here a little more closely, now that the first burst of enthusiasm has passed. The lack of commitment from the Hon Mark Burton in answering our questions on this topic this afternoon gives me hope that perhaps not all of Labour is equally committed to this wholesale attack on local body democracy.

The Green Party would be the first to agree that there are ways in which local governance in the Auckland region could and should be reformed, but the “super city” proposals are not the way to do that. The Government and local government should be working with the people of Auckland on how to deepen and extend local democracy and environmental protection and planning for the future that awaits us, not weakening all those things. We should be looking at maintaining at least the current level of political representation on our councils and giving more resources and power to the community boards, as well as moving towards single transferable voting systems. We want there to be want more democracy in Auckland, not a whole lot less. We want a future in which our environmental and our social goals are equally protected. This proposal flies in the face of all that.

There is obviously an urgent meeting of the National Party this afternoon, and I am really quite interested that Mr Henare does not seem to be part of it.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: No justice.

There is no justice. Recently I noticed a cartoon that had members of the National Party sitting around looking at the polls, and one of the captions said: “If only we had Helen Clark”. I note today that Gerry Brownlee, one of the candidates for National Party leadership, spoke at some length on the qualities of Norm Kirk. There is obviously a huge gap in leadership in the National Party, and I am really pleased that those members recognise the immense capacity of the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the wonderful contribution that Norm Kirk made to this country.

Labour plays by the rules, as previous speakers on this side of the House have said. When it comes to an election, we are very, very careful to play by the rules. I have before me a letter written by Bill English in 2002 and it plays by the rules. It does not ask for money. It does not tell readers to vote for him. It has several pages of what Bill English believes in, and it has a tear-off form that can be sent back to him—obviously, that postal service is paid for by the Parliamentary Service. I can assure the House that MPs are very, very mindful of the rules at election time. We are also very, very mindful of the Electoral Act, which says that MPs can function as MPs right up until the election. We are able to put out our normal advertisements and newsletters; that is the case. I know that personally, because I have rung up the Parliamentary Service and asked whether it was OK and within the rules to do that. I am sure that I am not the only one who has done that. Along with Bill English, I have been very careful not to say “vote for me”, “vote for my party”, or “give me money”. As previous speakers have said, the Labour Party has been very, very careful to abide by the rules.

Talking about the average New Zealander, I think the average New Zealander is very concerned about transparency. I think it was Chris Trotter who wrote an article saying that the engineers union gave around $60,000 towards Labour’s campaign. The donation was transparent; it was open; it was out there. Everybody knows about it—we declared it. I think average New Zealanders do not mind what people do in their private lives or in their public lives; what they care about is people trying to hide things—people trying to hide behind trusts and behind third parties. When things are not transparent average New Zealanders get suspicious and start to worry. They ask themselves what else they do not know about, what else they have not been told, and what else was not declared. The Labour Party has never not declared any donation. We are very, very careful about who donates what. We are very, very careful about who distributes our newsletters. We are very, very careful. In the last election, people went around with a razor blade and cut off the authorisation on my signs. Those people must have known that there has to be an authorisation on a sign. They deliberately went around with a razor blade and cut an inch off the bottom of my signs.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What were the public meetings like?

The public meetings in Hamilton were absolutely outrageous. Three rows of people, who were wearing a costume that has become very familiar in this House, shouted out erroneous comments about my sexuality, would you believe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It was absolutely appalling. These are people who say they worry about the conduct of MPs.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And they talk about hate speech.

They talk about hate speech and a whole range of things. In this House we have to be open, upfront, and transparent—that is what the people of New Zealand are looking for. At the time of an election or any time when politicians are more concerned about process than content—and I look at members opposite who are making strange noises—they are in trouble. Labour has delivered on that pledge card. There are more teachers, we have removed interest from student loans, and unemployment is at 3.6 percent—the lowest rate in the OECD. We will have 18,000 apprentices by 2008.

If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, it most probably is a rat. If it smells like corruption and looks like corruption, it absolutely is corruption. Mr Maharey said that Labour played by the rules. No, Labour members did not do so. They stole from the public. They stole money from the taxpayer and used it to try to get re-elected, and everybody in this country knows about it. They thieved and stole, and that is corruption.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member cannot say that.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Members in this House have previously taken exception to the word “corruption”. It has been ruled out of order. In this case the member has repeated the word and said that National played by the rules. I wonder whether he means to include the destruction of election hoardings in that description.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows he cannot use that word. He will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a point of conjecture. On Thursday, when the same issue came up, Speaker Wilson said she would not rule out the word “corruption”. Previously, Madam Assistant Speaker, you and Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson have ruled out the word. Speaker Wilson said on Thursday that the word “corruption” could be used, and now we are getting a different interpretation. I am not challenging your ruling; I am just saying that there is a difference in interpretation and that my colleague Tau Henare used the word on the basis that Speaker Wilson allowed it to be used last Thursday.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): A member cannot call a member or a party corrupt. That is the difference.

Well, if that is the case, then maybe the organisers of the Labour Party, such as Mike Williams, etc., are the corrupt ones. Yes, all of those people are the corrupt ones.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just ruled, not 1 minute ago, that it is out of order for someone to call an individual or a party corrupt. The member responded by naming individuals and alleging they were corrupt. That is clearly out of order and would be defamatory if said outside the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): A member cannot use that term for a member of Parliament or a party. He did not actually do that.

I mentioned Mike Williams because he is the so-called president of the Labour Party. What about all his mates in the union?

Let me tell members what the Service and Food Workers Union did. It stole $240,000 from its members, without telling them, and gave it to the Labour Party so that the Labour Party could use it.

💬 Hon Member: You’re making it up.

Making it up, am I? The member should just read the last Investigate magazine to see how the union stole $240,000 from its members and gave it to the Labour Party. If that is not corruption, I do not know what is.

I shall go through the events. In June 2003 the Auditor-General invited every party to meet with him to discuss election funding. What happened? The Labour Party leader, Helen Clark, and Michael Cullen actually refused to meet with him, because they knew that what they were doing was absolutely wrong and absolutely against the law—and it will come out. Dianne Yates moaned on about somebody cutting off the authorisation on her sign during the election campaign. Maybe the face should have been cut off it, as well. In July 2005 the Auditor-General wrote to everybody in order to reiterate the election spending rules. And what happened? The Labour Party broke the rules, and no manner of spin by Labour members in this House will let them get away with it.

💬 Dianne Yates: Party-hopper.

Absolutely! I am a party-hopper. So was Winston Churchill, but that is another story.

What we are talking about here is the dirty, sleazy tactics of a Government in trouble. It would have been easy for Helen Clark—for “Hele Baba and the 49 thieves”—to front up and say: “OK, if the Auditor-General says we’ve done wrong, we’ll pay it back.” But, oh no, not only does the Auditor-General believe that Labour Party members did wrong, in their sleazy, dirty manner, but those members front up to this House and say they are not going to pay the money back, even if he tells them to. And that leads this nation down the path of all the people out there—the ones whom we purport to represent and the ones whom this House purports to represent—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have established in previous rulings that it is against the Standing Orders to refer to a political party as being corrupt. The member has taken variations on that theme by referring to the president of our party in those terms. He has used a pejorative descriptor of our parliamentary party and has used the words “dirty” and “sleazy”. I put it to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, that those words connote the same meaning as the word you have previously ruled out, and I seek your considered ruling on whether they are acceptable parliamentary terms.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the word “corruption” has been ruled out by you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I accept that unreservedly. The words “sleazy” and “dirty” have been used in this House not only today but also yesterday. They were also used last week and the week before that. Are you now going to rule the words “sleazy” and “dirty” out, as well?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I am not. But I say to the member that any words can be ruled out if they are liable to bring disorder to the House.

Those members are sleazy. They are dirty. That is what we see here and that is what the public sees. In 2 years’ time that lot of sleazy, dirty people over there who try to use taxpayers’ money to get re-elected will be turfed out on their ears. And why? It will be for one reason only: they did not play by the rules. Maharey gets up in this House and has the audacity to say they played by the rules, even though the Auditor-General said they did not. The Labour Party spin machine has been out there working overtime, because those members do not have the money to pay back the taxpayers. Labour is broke, and its members are morally broke, as well.

If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, then we are probably talking to the last speaker. The words “dirty” and “sleazy” are somewhat more of a description of what that member sees in the mirror in his office. In my speech I was going to dwell for the 5 minutes available to me on what Labour promised in the pledge card and what it has delivered: more hip operations, more police, interest-free student loans, more apprenticeships—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What about the $400,000 worth?

I tell the member not to interrupt. He has had his say, and he could not say anything then.

Instead, I think I will give a case example of one of the member’s own colleagues. I will throw away the opportunity to talk about the good things Labour has done. We play by the rules; that member’s party does not. Here is a good case study. There is a member in this House whose election fund came 10 percent from local party members and 90 percent from big business. That is appalling. When we say that the Exclusive Brethren funded the National Party’s exercise, I can say that I received a letter in my office from those seven Exclusive Brethren members, pointing out that, no, they were not Exclusive Brethren, but they were all businessmen. They are obviously big business men who choose to use the Church. Why do they use the Church? In Hastings, Hawke’s Bay, people of the Church rang and push-polled. That is documented, but big business, by way of our newspapers, would not report upon that hard and fast fact.

And what did big business do in the case study I am talking about? Ten percent of the member for Napier’s funding came from National Party members. The other 90 percent came from big business—from millionaires-plus, including an insurance company. Another big business contributor was a printing company that printed, without authorisation, the member’s pamphlets. The first lot of pamphlets was distributed right around the electorate without any authorisation on them, but the pamphlets in the second distribution had a rubber-stamp mark on them that had been smeared out. That was breaking the rules. That was not playing by the rules. That was a clear breach of the rules. Those pamphlets were funded by big business. That member paid 7 percent of the market price for pamphlets to be distributed around Napier—pamphlets that were not attributed. A complaint was made, so he rubber-stamped the second distribution of pamphlets. But that was not playing by the rules, because those pamphlets were funded by big business. Seven percent of the market price was paid.

What else do we have in this case study? Big business contributed 90 percent of the funding—and we know who was connected with big business in that campaign: the Exclusive Brethren. We do not know from the names to what extent that 90 percent was paid by the Exclusive Brethren, but we know that the Exclusive Brethren are big business and that they are paying for the tongue of that member. We needed only to listen to his speeches in the House in the last year. None of them were about Napier concerns; they were all about increasing benefits for big business. That tongue was paid for from the 90 percent contribution to that man’s campaign.

What else do we have? We have the non-declaration of the van. Big business donated to this man a van that he painted up with one of Labour’s promises to increase the number of police—and we have delivered on that. That van was owned by, and used at the expense of, big business right throughout the campaign, and it was not declared. I suppose that is a very liberal interpretation of not declaring the cost of transport, but I would have thought the gift of a van, worth many thousands of dollars, was a gift from big business that should be declared. Was that playing by the rules? I think not.

So those who get up here and say: “If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, then it is …” should look at themselves, at their own party, and at their own members. If those members can sit here, having been funded 90 percent by big business, having been funded on a major, undeclared asset by big business, and having had pamphlets paid for at 7 percent of market cost by big business, then we can know what the analogy and example of: “If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, …”, means.

If we look at the track record of speeches in this House, we see that the rules clearly apply differently if a party is funded by big business. That party’s members do not talk about the needs of their electorates, and they do not talk about what is good for the towns they represent; they talk about what is good for big business, by way of cuts and tougher employment laws. That is what smells like a rat.

For many New Zealanders listening to the debate this afternoon, what they have heard will be of little relevance to them, because for many New Zealanders at the moment, in all walks of life, one of the most pressing issues they face is paying the rates bill. As property values have escalated, and as council services have increased, the pressure on domestic rates as a way of financing those operations has also increased, to the point where it has become intolerable for many. The decisions that were announced a few weeks ago about an inquiry into the rating system will go some way towards addressing these matters, but they are, in effect, dealing with the symptom rather than the problem. I want to spend my time this afternoon concentrating on what the problem is, and on some of the solutions to it.

We have 4 million people in New Zealand; we have 12 regional councils and 74 territorial authorities, including 16 city councils. Local authorities in New Zealand contribute about 3 percent of the GDP of this country. When one looks at the number of councillors who are elected and at the roles they perform, it can be seen that we are hopelessly over-governed at a local level. In my area of Wellington, we have one member of Parliament for every 54,000 people, and we have one local council or district health board member for every 5,400 people. The real issue as to why rates are increasing is that the cost of local government in New Zealand is increasing, and the charges that local government imposes are increasing—and that is the issue we ought to be targeting.

It is worth noting that 57 percent of the $4.6 billion it costs to run local government in New Zealand comes from rates. Twelve percent comes from central government, 20 percent comes from other sources, and there are other bits and pieces, as well. Until we tackle that issue, we will always have a problem with escalating local body rates. One of the things we need to do is go back to the process that was begun in 1989 of local authority amalgamation and reformation, to ensure that we have structures that meet the needs of our people today, and that do not impose significant additional costs upon them.

The issue of rates financing local government has been a significant one worldwide. The Irish in 1977 abolished rates altogether and took to financing local government out of significantly increased motor vehicle registration charges. That did not work, and they are now reverting to a system of some limited rates application. Britain tried a poll tax in the late 1980s. All that did was to bring down the Conservative Prime Minister and Government of the day, and cause rioting in the streets.

There is no simple answer to the financing of local government. Australia is trying various state taxes and levies. The real issue is the purpose and function of local government itself, and for a country of our size it is a big question to be asking as to whether we need the level of local government we have—whether we need the relationship between regional authorities and territorial authorities, with their plethora of duplication of administration. We need to ask whether we continue with the system whereby some services are provided by some councils while in other places they are provided by central government, where every single council seems to have to have a tourist promotion initiative or an economic development initiative, and where we have constant repetition and argument between parochial local authorities that stifle development, stifle growth, and stifle opportunity.

I think that if we got back to basics and looked again at the structure and purpose of local government, and our expectations of that, then structured the system accordingly, and if we then worked out the best way of financing those operations, we could make significant changes for the benefit of the rates bills many New Zealanders are now facing. It is simply not good enough to continue with the high level of over-government we have at a local authority level. By all means, we should look at things like community boards and other forms of direct representation for specific communities, but we have to get away from the monolithic structure of local government in New Zealand that is stifling so many areas of development today.

I rise for the first time in a general debate, and I am proud to do so. In doing so, I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party, as well, because the Labour Party is the party of consistent and progressive social policy in New Zealand. Since 1999 we have kept growth high, we have invested in infrastructure and in retirement savings, and we have governed for all the people, not just for a wealthy or privileged few. As a result, we have built a mainstream—and I use that word advisedly, because it is time we reclaimed it—coalition of New Zealanders. It comprises working people and their families of all descriptions: Māori, Pacific peoples, ethnic communities, women, gay and lesbian New Zealanders, environmentalists, disabled New Zealanders, and, here is the key, urban, liberal New Zealanders. That coalition has won us three elections in a row and, if we keep our focus and our humility, it will win us a fourth. That is the lesson from the recent Queensland election. No one buys our policies, and there is no economic benefit for us in enacting our programme. We follow the programme because we know it is the right thing to do. It is born of our strong commitment to social justice—what one of our early leaders described as applied Christianity.

The National Party once had a proud record of liberalism. One of its constituents was the old Liberal Party. The National Party introduced the Humans Rights Commission Act in the 1970s, and it also reformed matrimonial property law. In the 1990s Doug Graham progressed Treaty settlements. So I want to know, what has happened to the National Party since then? What has caused the great change? What has caused this reversion to dog-whistle politics, the politics of the lowest common denominator? Where are the great liberals of the National Party of the past? [Interruption] I wish Mr Auchinvole good luck, because its future is in his hands and in those of his new colleagues.

Let us look at the National Party’s recent record on social policy. When Bob Clarkson said the most appalling things about Islamic New Zealanders and gay and lesbian New Zealanders, what was the response? The “liberal” spokesperson for National, Chris Finlayson, said: “Oh, I agree with everything he says.” Some liberal! When Georgina Beyer introduced legislation that would have protected one of the most marginalised groups in our society—transsexual and intersex New Zealanders—what did Richard Worth, supposedly another liberal on the National back bench, say? He went on about cross-dressing teachers, cross-dressing soldiers, and cross-dressing prison officers, appealing to the lowest common denominator again, and forsaking and burning off that important urban liberal constituency, without which it is not possible to govern in this country.

We all know about the subliminal message given when the leader of the National Party—for the time being—talks about one law for all New Zealanders. We know what it means; we know the implicit permission it gives for racist New Zealanders to vent their prejudices on talkback and elsewhere. That is a disgrace; it is an absolute disgrace. How can Māori votes be courted while a party espouses that line? The number of urban, liberal New Zealanders who have said to me they did not vote for National last time because they did not like the racist undertones of its policy, is very significant.

For our country’s sake, I hope that the National Party will return to its proud tradition of liberalism, because a consensus on human rights and social policy is important in a small country such as ours—a small country that has suffered unduly from the pendulum swings of policy.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha.

I do not think this is an amusing question; I think it is a fundamental one to the health of our democracy, so I would not laugh as hard as that about it. I think it is a great shame that the National Party has lost its liberal traditions, and that it is now a case of “policy for sale”, it would appear. That is not the case on the Labour side of the House, but it is certainly the case over there. That is a very, very bad thing for the National Party, and a very, very bad thing for New Zealand. But it is a great thing for the Labour Party, because people see through this—they see through the capture of policy by big business and by weird, extremist, religious sects. They see through it, they know what it is, and they know it for what it is. Having seen it, they will reject it, and they will leave Labour in power for a long time.

From the Wharerata Ranges, south of Gisborne, to Cape Palliser in south Wairarapa, from Paritū in the north, to Turakirae in the south, there is a tribal nation called Ngāti Kahungunu. Over the last fortnight Ngāti Kahungunu has launched a host of key strategies that it hopes will move it forward towards the promotion of self-determination for Māori, tino rangatiratanga. The 25-year grand plan comprises the te reo and tikanga strategy, the housing strategy, the establishment of a Māori relationship board with Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, and the creation of the Kahungunu asset holding company, an investment strategy. The iwi commemorated the Kahungunu fisheries Treaty settlement allocation, and in true Kahungunu style, the celebrations were capped off with a performance by Kahurangi of the journey of te waka tapu o Tākitimu.

I come to this debate today, honouring the capacity for self-determination—the freedom for indigenous peoples to live well, to live according to their own values and beliefs, and to be respected by their non-indigenous neighbours. It is a capacity that the nation of Aotearoa has observed in abundance as we have marked the passing of two legendary monarchs. It is a concept that I believe it is now timely to examine, and to ask some questions about of ourselves and of others.

Self-determination is, as the indigenous Premier of Greenland, Lars Emil Johansen described: “The right to take responsibility. Self-determination is hard work.” So it seems an appropriate time, as we pay our last respects to Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu and, in the last few days, to King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, to sit and reflect on the unique experiences of the people of Tainui and the people of Tonga, in taking responsibility for their own destinies.

Mr Johansen put forward some critical insights to the 1994 Cape York Land Council in Cairns, which I believe have relevance for the indigenous policy for our own development as tangata whenua. The view put was that, basically, if we are claiming the right to tino rangatiratanga, then we are claiming the right to take responsibility. In turn, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson asked, as we must also ask: “Do we really want to take responsibility? Do we want to do the hard work of self-determination? Are we properly unified to fulfil our responsibility? Are we prepared to show leadership and build consensus and overcome division? Or are we so divided that, if we took on the responsibilities, we would do just as bad a job as the bureaucracy and the white fellas?”.

As Māori, our rangatiratanga is expressed in our rights to determine our own economic, social, and cultural development. As part of our journey we have resisted the process by which our indigenous language, tribal values, and cultural identities were to be pounded out of shape. Through it all we must retain the ability to ask questions of ourselves. How do we pay regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples?

We have watched the resurgence of the Tongan people to hold tight to their unique value of rangatiratanga. One aspect of this has been the official report of the Kingdom of Tonga National Committee for Political Reform, which His Majesty the King was presented with just 10 days before he died. Originally chaired by the late Prince Tu’ipelehake and endorsed by the Tongan Government, the work of the committee was shared in a nationwide consultation process of talanoa—seeking the people’s views about political changes in Tonga, as well as consultation with Tongans living here in Aotearoa, in Australia, and in the United States. The people themselves are embracing a new period of political and constitutional reform. The challenge ahead will be how the monarchy responds to the call for the right to self-determination.

It is a matter of some concern that our own Government is seriously compromising our international reputation in the way in which it misrepresented New Zealand’s position on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of that declaration, adopted by the Human Rights Council on 29 June this year, states: “Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The Māori Party celebrates the right of self-determination. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.