General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is always good to rise before the National Party members, who, in the spirit of spring, with their sap rising, are so loud and noisy. Of course, their emotions are running high. The whiff of change of leadership is in the air in the National Party, once again. I say “once again” because the National Party has had an unbelievable amount of practice at changing not just its leader but its deputy leader and its front bench, in a kind of dizzying whirlwind that takes place every few months. But the stunning thing is that this time the speculation is about Dr Don Brash. There would not be one National member who does not look at Dr Brash as the man who restored the National Party vote. Despite that, they all know—as every single member of this House and every observer knows—that Dr Don Brash will be replaced as the leader by the end of the summer period. As Dr Hutchison would say, why will this happen? Why will the change take place? In the short time I have to speak I will come up with four reasons.

The first reason is that the National Party can go no further with Don Brash. The whole strategy has been about gobbling up every right-wing vote in the country, and there is no more right-wing vote left. Every member of the National Party knows that Dr Brash has reached his limit, and that National cannot be the Government if he is the leader, because he cannot get any more votes. In addition, he cannot work with any other party. He cannot work with New Zealand First members—he has alienated them. He cannot talk to the Māori Party members—he cannot even have dinner with them. Rodney Hide has literally shrunk away from his relationship with the National Party. There is no one left for the National Party to talk to. So no, National cannot be the Government.

The second reason is the ongoing bumbling performance of Dr Brash, which is so embarrassing. I will give the House just two quotes. A commentator on Dr Brash said he has “a political death-wish”. Another said that Dr Brash “has now performed the type of pratfall that has punctuated his political career, displaying skills more akin to those of a blind man stumbling around a swamp than a sure-footed sportsman.” John Armstrong said: “Don Brash was so underwhelming in his handling of the latest crisis to buffet him and his party that it might seem he has a political death-wish.” I cannot see anybody continuing to put up with one pratfall after another.

The third reason is division. Dr Brash has marked his period as leader by dividing the country against itself. To take one example, his position on race has consistently divided people in ways that have been totally and utterly destructive, even to the point where he recently said that no Māori exist, because no Māori has full blood. Mrs te Heuheu said in response to this: “It’s not about (blood) quantum at all … it’s about the practices you follow, the customs you keep and maintain, the languages you speak and the place in the world where those are unique and indigenous to.” Mr Henare rightly said: “(Dr Brash) has his view, I’ve got mine. I know that part of my genealogy is indigenous to this nation and nowhere else, so I’m quite comfortable.”

So even the two Māori in the National Party found his position on race to be totally and utterly divisive and unacceptable. That is what he has made his hallmark for the last little while. He is understood now to be a person who can never bring New Zealanders together—he can only push them apart. National Party members know that. They know that as younger National Party members come through and look at the old colonial tea planter, there is no way they will sit and be led by that last-century icon. They want change.

The fourth reason is that he cannot remember anything. Actually, what I have found with Dr Brash, if we take the Brethren as the example, is that he can always remember what he did not say at a meeting but can never remember what he did say. If he is asked about a meeting, he will say: “I can’t remember the meeting—oh, yes, I can. I can remember what I did not say, but I can’t remember what I did say.” If he cannot remember even that, he is finished as the National Party leader.

I feel flattered that the first Government speaker could talk about nothing but the leader of the National Party. I clearly get under your skin.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the member is relatively new, but he cannot say that he is getting under “your” skin.

On 16 February this year I called on Helen Clark and the Labour Party to repay the $446,000 of taxpayers’ money that had been misappropriated—or stolen, to use everyday language—by the Labour Party to fund its pledge card in the campaign last year. Eight months later I am still waiting. We are still calling on Helen Clark to pay it back. She should pay back the money she misappropriated—pay back the money she stole.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this the same point of order?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it is actually a separate one. The member then indicated to the House that the Prime Minister had misappropriated money. That is unparliamentary.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. The member must be careful around those sorts of imputations.

As the last week of last year’s campaign began, most polls had the National Party leading the Labour Party. Then the Labour Party unleashed a barrage of advertising—$416,000 of advertising, to be precise. The National Party was astonished—how could the Labour Party have that much money left within its legal limit, and still remain legal? Of course, we now know that the Labour Party did not have that amount of money left; it simply ignored the law. Labour members went right on spending, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they were legally entitled to do. They broke the law. They engaged in what the Electoral Act called “a corrupt practice”.

Not only that, we now know that they not only spent hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they were legally entitled to do, but also they used taxpayers’ money, the money that rightly belongs to the New Zealand public, to do so. When they were caught out, Helen Clark used every kind of excuse, every kind of diversionary tactic, to avoid having to pay it back. “Everybody’s doing it.”, she said. “If we have to pay it back, hundreds of millions of dollars spent by all parties since the late 80s should be paid back.”, she said. “This is just a beltway issue; it’s time to move on.”, she said. “If we are found to have broken the law, we’ll pass retrospective legislation to fix it.”, she said. “The rules are unclear.”, she said. “I am not responsible for what my chief of staff did.”, she said. “The Auditor-General changed the rules.”, she said.

Well, I tell the Prime Minister that that will not wash. Even Matt Robson has admitted that the rules were perfectly clear. The Progressive party understood them, the Māori Party understood them, my own office understood them. The rules were clear; there was no excuse for ignoring them.

The Auditor-General warned political parties months before the election to be very careful. Helen Clark simply ignored the rules. She even tried to pretend in the House yesterday that somehow she had no responsibility for the issue—that even though she said: “My signature is on it, I am accountable for it, and Labour in Government will be held to it by me.”, somehow she now pretends that somebody else is to blame for the predicament she finds herself in. Well, I tell the Prime Minister that this is an outrage. The Prime Minister is responsible for the misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may not imply that the Prime Minister has misappropriated, or is responsible for that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During points of order and during rulings it has been the tradition in this House for the speaker to resume his or her seat. Don Brash did not do that on either of those occasions.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is for me to deal with. I do not need that pointed out to me.

I say to the Prime Minister that this is an outrage. It is alleged by the Auditor-General that the Prime Minister has misappropriated hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars—a misappropriation that ensured she personally gained financially to the extent of at least $130,000 per year, and $400,000 over this parliamentary term. If the Labour Party cannot pay it back, Helen Clark and her colleagues should do so.

So what do we say to Helen Clark? We say: “Pay it back, and pay it back quickly.” Of course, even if she does pay it back, reluctantly, and in response to overwhelming public opinion, her Government will still be guilty of a corrupt practice. The Auditor-General has confirmed what every other independent agency has found—that the pledge card was an election expense. Pete Hodgson agrees. It is absolutely clear that in that situation the Labour Party broke the law and spent nearly 20 percent more than it was allowed to do. No other party did that. Helen Clark is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country. She has crossed a threshold and has lost her moral authority to govern.

Well, that was a half-hearted clap. And we noticed who was not clapping. Bill English was not clapping, and John Key was not clapping.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the parliamentary telephone directory.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred to the fact that Bill English and John Key were not in the House. He is not allowed to do that. Excuse me—an apology, Mr Deputy Speaker. He referred to the fact that they were not clapping. He has no idea at all whether they were clapping, because in fact he cannot see them.

That point of order was nearly as good as the one we heard yesterday from the woman at the back, whose name I have forgotten.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a pile of papers I have here in front of me.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to identify them, at all, Mr Brownlee?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Oh, yes. There are a couple I have done some scribblings on, there is a Chamber phone list here, there is a series of names I have for New Zealand First: Lassie, Spot, Rover, Fido, Pluto, and Goofy. I seek leave to table those.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is sufficient.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will just deal with this point of order. Does the member want to speak to the point of order?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will speak to the point of order. First of all, he does not have any correspondence from New Zealand First, at all. Therefore, “Fatty” is lying, is he not?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He is—table it!

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. I am on my feet, Mr Deputy Speaker—one at a time. I am speaking to the point of order. Tell him to sit down; that is the rule.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: But it is not relevant, Mr Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. He says that he wants to table a document. I do not believe he has it, and I say he is misleading the House. He has no correspondence from New Zealand First, at all. In short, he is lying.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. You should not use that word in this Chamber, Mr Peters. In any case, one would hope that Mr Brownlee has the papers. It is not really relevant whether he has or does not have them, and it is not covered by the Standing Orders.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you trying to be helpful, Mr Mallard?

I think, to help my ministerial colleague, I should just point out that Mr Brownlee said he was going to table a list of names he was going to call New Zealand First, or something similar, rather than correspondence from it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This requires no further debate. I thought members were seeking elucidation of the nature of the papers. It is simply a case of seeking leave, and members can object to it if they wish. Leave has been sought for those papers to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was trying to finish my point of order, and the second part of my point of order was that the leader of the National Party got up, objected to something that did not happen in respect of a reference to members being in the House—or not being present. Then he made it clear that members on his own side were not in the House—the very thing he had protested about—and, in doing so, he offended against the Standing Order. I ask you to bring him to order and tell him to apologise for that, because making reference to people who are not in the House is not allowed. I know Dr Brash has been here for a short time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that he should have learnt by now at least one Standing Order in the time he has been the leader—temporarily—of the National Party. He offended against a Standing Order, and you heard him do it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a purpose for the Standing Order, and the way in which Dr Brash referred to it did not contravene that purpose, at all. We will move on.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the first and second points of order taken by Winston Peters, he called me a liar. I am not. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that Mr Henare was thrown out of the House this afternoon for calling someone a liar, so I think that Mr Peters should at least withdraw and apologise, or remove himself from the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I dealt with that matter before. I explained to him that he may not use that language in the House, and I left it at that. I think we have moved past that point—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee has taken specific exception to that. It is always the case in this House that when someone has been offended against—particularly in that particular way—and has taken offence to it, then the person who has made the statement is required to withdraw and apologise. That has always been the practice, and I expect it to be upheld now.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am prepared to withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you have just seen is the National Party being able to dish it out but not to take it. Mr Brownlee read out a list of canine names that he made up, and he thinks that is OK, but when somebody reacts to that, the National members simply cannot take it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He should be asked to apologise for that, but we did not do that. We are not like the National Party—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing and apologising. You are not raising a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said I apologised, and I expect them, in the future, to not behave in that way. That is what I was asking for.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take the point that Mr Peters is making, but I want to make it very clear to the House that despite his generous offer to withdraw, I did not take offence at him referring to me as “Fatty”. That is something I am entirely responsible for.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will continue, and we have not docked the time for the points of order.

Thank you. When I was a new back-bencher I had a 5-minute speech that lasted 37 minutes; I thought I was going to beat that record. I say to Dr Brash that he can run, but unless he jumps in his coffin he cannot hide. I say to that member that everyone knows he is going, although he is absolutely correct that we could not see Bill English and John Key—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: 49 percent!

There goes Nick Smith, saying “49 percent!” But we know that he is the member who cannot count. He is the one whom Bill English relied on to make sure that Don Brash would not win.

But the point that we all know is that the National members are debating and plotting. How do we know that, and how do we know that they have not reached a consensus? Bill English sent an email to Molesworth & Featherston, saying that there is certainly no consensus. National members had said, the week before, that there was a consensus and it was around John Key and Gerry Brownlee. Bill English was really offended by that, and he sent an email to Molesworth & Featherston that did not say there would be no leadership change—it did not say that, at all—but said that there was no consensus on the replacement leader.

I also want to know when Bill English will front up and own up to something else. When will he own up to being the person who said that John Key does not have the bottle for a leadership change?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

It is not true? He does not have the bottle, says Nick Smith. Nick Smith agrees with Bill English that John Key does not have the bottle. I think that is an interesting situation. I am not sure whether or not John Key has the bottle. I am sure that among his supporters for a leadership change in the National Party—and I see Mr McCully swaggering into the House—there are a few people with a bit of bottle. I think Gerry Brownlee has the bottle; he has the bottle to give John Key a hand. But Bill English says that John Key does not have the bottle. I think that is probably true. John Key has led quite a protected life. Over recent years it has been relatively sweet. He has not been engaged in politics in the same way that some others have, and he has not been hurled into the job in the way that Don Brash was. It would have happened already if that were to be the case.

There is clearly no good organisation around John Key. I ask members opposite to please put John Key into the leadership. He is the one we want to be there, and we want him there soon. We want John Key to be the leader of the National Party, and we want him to be the leader soon, because the sooner he becomes the leader of the National Party the better it will be. If he gets through the summer and through the lovely photos of the candidate from West Hollywood, or wherever it is—

💬 Darren Hughes: Central Casting.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD:—Central Casting—then people will start to listen to him. What will they hear? They will hear someone who is empty.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Gerry?

No, Gerry will be the deputy leader until they toss him out and put—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Gerry Brownlee will be the deputy leader until Judith Collins takes over. That is the deal that John Key is trying to arrange. He is trying to double-deal. He has said to Judith Collins that by the election, the National Party has to have a woman deputy leader, but he is saying to Gerry Brownlee—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What’s this about?

Well, it is about balancing it up; it is about getting all the eggs into one basket. Gerry Brownlee’s votes are needed to get rid of Brash, but then Gerry Brownlee will go. That is the deal, because Judith Collins is on a promise from Don Brash.

I want to know when Bill English will deny sending that email to Molesworth & Featherston.

The public should know that the member resuming his seat, the Hon Trevor Mallard, aspires to be the Minister of Finance. That ought to horrify New Zealanders.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from a New Zealander who had sought help from Taito Phillip Field on an immigration matter. His wife was an overstayer who had been forced to leave New Zealand. Since writing that letter, the person has signed a statutory declaration, and I will read it to the House so that the House can hear the solemn declaration of this Kiwi in his own words.

“On 31 July 1993 I left New Zealand for Samoa. I returned from Samoa on 5 October 1993. I can recall meeting Mr Phillip Field in his then office in Mangere sometime in 1994.

When I met Mr Field in his Mangere office I spoke to him about an immigration matter. He told me that it would have to be done in the Samoan way and I recall he mentioned the term ‘fa’alavelave’. But he then told me the more money I could find the better the outcome would be in the long run. I was unable to give him any money because I had nothing.

The immigration matter I have referred to related to my wife and her two New Zealand born children who had to leave New Zealand because she was considered an overstayer. That is why we left New Zealand for Samoa in 1993. I paid for the trip to Samoa. When I returned to New Zealand in October 1993 it was without my wife and our children. That is why I went to Mangere where I saw Mr Field and sought his help.

For the reasons given in paragraph three (above), my very clear understanding was that if any money was to be paid, it had to be paid to Mr Field for his help on this immigration matter. On the basis of what Mr Field said to me, I believe he intended to keep some of the cash for himself. As I said above (paragraph three), that was the Samoan way or fa’alavelave. I knew exactly what fa’alavelave is.

A few years later I took part in the Hikoi of Hope which started in the North of the North Island and ended up at Parliament grounds. I was at the Wellington end and marched right to the steps of Parliament. I stood right at the front of the Hikoi and I can recall seeing Mr Field. I waved to him. He saw me and he hung his head.”

That solemn declaration was signed in front of an independent solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand on the ninth day of October, 2006. I do not intend to table it, because I do not want a media scrum around this individual, who has already suffered enough. He lost his wife and children. Because he had no money, Taito Phillip Field would not help him. I think that is a disgrace. I intend to pass this statutory declaration on to the New Zealand Police, who are investigating these matters. I think the declaration shows that the inquiry established by the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, into the immigration matters involving Taito Phillip Field was totally inadequate. This is not the only case I am aware of where money was required to be paid. The difference, in this case, is that this individual has nothing more to lose, because he lost his wife and children.

Others got help because they paid cash. They do not want to sign such declarations, because they are fearful of the consequences should they do so. I think it is a sad day for this Parliament and a sad day for New Zealand when a Minister in a Labour Government has that kind of behaviour associated with his role as a member of Parliament. I expect the Labour Party will take some steps to do something about it. It is an indictment on all members of this Parliament that I hope never ever happens again.

This is a sad story of David and Goliath, but, unlike the biblical story, David loses and a smug, corpulent Goliath goes unpunished. George Calvert, a returned serviceman who fought in Malaya, and a self-made man who started by cleaning windows, invested his honestly earned income in an investment scheme called Spacetable, which was sold and promoted up and down the country by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Inland Revenue investigated the scheme and found it to be a sham. At the time it promoted the Spacetable scheme, PricewaterhouseCoopers gave undertakings to investors that if the Inland Revenue Department challenged the scheme it would defend it all the way to the High Court—a promise it later reneged on. When put to the test, and having pocketed its promoter fees, PricewaterhouseCoopers walked away from its obligations to defend the scheme and simply advised the investors to settle with the Inland Revenue Department and pay their tax penalties. Such settlements were in the best interests of PricewaterhouseCoopers, but not those of the investors.

Mr Calvert was unhappy with this outcome, particularly as PricewaterhouseCoopers had been his tax and financial advisers for many years. He always trusted its professional judgment without question. In fact, the main reason he invested in the Spacetable scheme in the first place was that Peter Croft and Graham Archer—partners in PricewaterhouseCoopers—were already investors personally, along with his own PricewaterhouseCoopers tax adviser, Frank Burgess. Indeed, Peter Croft was, at the time, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ national managing partner for tax.

The second reason for investing was the PricewaterhouseCoopers undertaking to support a tax case to the High Court. When it later reneged on this undertaking it did not refund any of the fees. Mr Calvert felt further betrayed when he subsequently learnt that Peter Croft was the only Spacetable investor not to claim personal tax deductions in respect of the scheme, thus completely escaping any personal tax penalties.

To make matters even worse, Mr Calvert then learned that Messrs Croft and Archer had personally profited from his investment when they purloined some of the Spacetable promoter fees by reducing the PricewaterhouseCoopers invoices issued in respect of Spacetable and applying the difference to personal expenditure. This personal expenditure consisted of a first-class, no expenses spared junket, together with their wives, to attend the Bledisloe Cup game in Sydney.

This scandalous behaviour is not only tax evasion—an imprisonable offence—but constitutes a secret commission subject to the Secret Commissions Act of 1910, which prohibits such behaviour. Furthermore, it is a fraud on the PricewaterhouseCoopers partnership. Even though this criminal behaviour has been brought to the attention of the PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman, John Shewan, it is curious that the matter has still not been referred to the police and that Graham Archer remains a senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers today. What is more, I understand that when an Inland Revenue senior inspector was apprised of the situation, he was instructed to drop the matter because of the influence of John Shewan.

The questions remain. Who within PricewaterhouseCoopers or the Inland Revenue Department instructed a senior inspector to stop investigating this blatant case of tax evasion committed jointly by Messrs Croft and Archer and the PricewaterhouseCoopers partnership itself? It is scandalous that such an elite treatment be extended to individuals who have an earning capacity in the millions and have evaded tax out of sheer greed rather than necessity, and the little guy—the former soldier from 1st Battalion, who started from the bottom, who saw active service on behalf of his country in Malaya—is shafted while the fat cat corporates walk away unscathed.

Members should rest assured that New Zealand First will be back in the House asking questions on this matter. I seek the leave of the House to table a carton of documents. They are documents from the Wellington High Court, documents from Corporate Risks, and documents relating to Capital Fund (Management) Ltd—all relating to the speech I have just given.

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

My Labour Party colleague Steve Maharey has already talked in the House today about a whiff of change in the air. Spring is in the National caucus. Why has this early spring, just 1 year after the election, come about? It is because nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum has been created in the National Party and the message to the people of New Zealand is that it has been created because the current National leader, Don Brash, has burnt everybody off.

Mr Maharey has already talked about the fact that immigrants, people whom Mr Brash described as non-mainstream, were burnt off fairly early after the election. Mr Brash burnt iwi off when he said that they were not really iwi because somehow their genetics were mixed up—as if the rest of us do not have mixed up genetics, as well. After all, if one thinks of the British Isles alone and how many waves of invaders have been through there, are the people there Romans, Celts, or Saxons? No, they are British, and they identify as such, just as iwi do, as well. So Dr Brash has burnt off iwi and many migrants, from Croats to Koreans, because they were not mainstream.

In addition to that, of course, we have the flirtation with the Brethren, which has shocked and outraged so many people in New Zealand. It has shown how corrupt the body politic of New Zealand could be perceived to be when people see a cult intervening in politics with large amounts of cash. It is very American. So, yes, a vacuum has been created and, as I said earlier, nature abhors a vacuum and a number of individuals have wedged themselves into that space.

My colleague Mr Mallard has already spoken about some of the pretenders to the throne. One of them, Mr Key, is somebody we would be desperate to see win it, and I will tell the House why. Mr Key represents a west Auckland constituency, although he does not live in it as I do. I, of course, live in my constituency. One hears things in one’s local area about the local members. Mr Key did some very interesting things during the election campaign. He was at a public meeting of ratepayers in Hobsonville and he was asked what his opinion on abortion was. His response was: “I have never been asked that question before.”, then there was silence.

At a meeting just a month or so ago about a Housing New Zealand development in Hobsonville, also in the area Mr Key represents but does not live in, he allowed people in the audience to say that State house tenants were scum—this from an individual who grew up in a State house, but he made no mention of that. He nodded his head in agreement as the anti - State-house-tenant comments were made. Mr Key is also an individual who said he had nothing to do with the Brethren. But, oddly enough, when the Brethren were shown on television meeting with the National Party it appeared to be in Mr Key’s house in Parnell. It is very interesting.

💬 John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Te Atatu is making some very unfortunate and incorrect statements. He is deliberately misleading the House with those comments. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. I take offence at those comments. They are not correct. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Take a personal explanation.

💬 John Key: Listen, sunshine, when someone lies to the House I am going to ask that that person withdraws and apologises.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I say to Mr Cosgrove that it is a point of order, but I realise he was trying to be helpful and give advice. What the member raises is not a point of order, but if he has been offended by things that have been said then it is in order that they be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, perhaps you could help me. Is it that I said Mr Key does not live in his electorate? Is it because I said he did not answer a question on abortion? Is it because I said that he agreed and did not intervene when State house tenants were called scum?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You did not say that Mr Key said that State house tenants were scum. That is something that could be objected to if it was not true. You were quite entitled to say, although I cannot see the relevance of it, that he allowed a member in the audience to say that. I cannot see how one can prevent that. But if Mr Key has been offended by things that you said, and I do not want you to enumerate them again, then you should withdraw them.

💬 John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member said that I nodded in agreement. That is not correct. That is completely misleading the House. The Minister knows that, because when I sat down before he gave me a little wink. I do not mind if members want to make things up, but if they could be even slightly factually correct it would be useful. I will not sit back while that very junior and incompetent Minister tries to slag me off.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was never a point of order, except for the point where the member raised objection. What people may feel offended by cannot be judged in advance. But that member has been offended. Please, Mr Carter, just withdraw the remarks and then continue.

I withdraw the comments. It could have been an involuntary neck movement, I accept.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you quite rightly pointed out I am attempting to assist in this situation. I would just like your advice, and you may wish to pass it on to Mr Key. It is a longstanding Standing Order—Standing Order 350—that if a member of Parliament feels aggrieved, and feels he or she has been wronged, that member can stand up and make a personal explanation regarding matters of a personal nature that he or she feels offended by. It also points out, for the edification of Mr Key, that a personal explanation may not be debated. It is a longstanding procedure, too, that if Mr Key feels that anything Mr Carter said is incorrect or inaccurate he can do so. But you may wish to invite him to take advantage of that, of course. The record of the House will record exactly what Mr Key says.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is an explanation of procedure, which you have correctly raised. But I have, of course, chosen to deal with it another way.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is pretty simple. Standing Order 161 makes it abundantly clear that if a member takes offence at a statement made by another member then that statement should be withdrawn and apologised for. In the context of the story that the Minister was trying to tell, the remark was extremely offensive, and there should be no smart alec behaviour. Lesser offences today and the abuse of your position by an attempted withdrawal and then explanation have seen people leave the House. Perhaps Mr Carter should be either asked to withdraw and apologise, or leave.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: The member has just compounded the problem. You have already ruled on the matter—the matter has been dealt with—and by raising the matter in the way that he has Mr Brownlee has effectively challenged the Chair, and that is quite improper.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is correct to say that you had made a ruling, and it was clear. It has always been the practice here that a withdrawal and an apology must be unqualified. The Minister sought to qualify his withdrawal and apology. I think the matter is a simple one. You simply need to require an unqualified withdrawal and apology as you directed.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think the member qualified his withdrawal at the point he made it.

💬 John Key: He did. He said it may have been an involuntary movement of his neck.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I am mistaken—the Minister was good enough to withdraw his remark—and the Minister qualified his remark, would he please withdraw it, unqualified, and then continue.

I withdraw the remark, unqualified. Having regard to the sorts of issues that we have dealt with for the last 15 minutes, we would be delighted if Mr Key became the next leader of the National Party. In fact, our prayers and libations would be answered. That would be fantastic.

Of course, there are a number of other contenders for the job. One of them is Bill English who would seek to be the new John Howard of New Zealand. Alas, of course, unlike John Howard, who does seem to have a remarkable ability to connect with the people of Australia, Bill English demonstrated conclusively in 2002 that he has no ability whatsoever to connect with the people of New Zealand, and should he beat off John Key to the job we would be almost as pleased as we would if John Key got it. It is interesting.

We have had lots of denials that there is a whiff of change in the air and a leadership race is on. One has just to look at the Opposition as we do, from the Government side, because a picture can tell 1,000 words. We watch Mr Key and Mr English as they sit next to each other but face opposite directions. I do not think I have ever seen them exchange a word together in the House, and I sit exactly opposite them. The body language is delicious; it just oozes hostility and rivalry.

The other fascinating thing is that we watch their faces when Mr Brash is speaking. Neither of them ever looks at him. They both look in opposite directions to each other, at each end of the Chamber, and never, never at Mr Brash. The body language is very revealing.

Of course, the other thing is that to become leader one has to assemble the votes. I assume one would have to come up with 25 votes in the National caucus to win. It has been very interesting to watch how the two leading contenders deal with the rest of their caucus. It is fascinating.

It is interesting to note that at a time when the Government has been able to tell the nation it has a record surplus, when we have had Ministers in the Chamber trying to say that this is a great Government doing wonderful things in the health field, a Government whose Minister of Health today told us that he is able to get 10,000 new operations for just $50 million, a Government whose Minister of Education came into the House today and said that the investment it is making in education is the best thing it could possibly do for the future of New Zealand, and a Prime Minister who wants to say that the leadership she and her Government offer New Zealand is as good as it could ever be, it chooses to talk about the National Party rather than about its own record. The Government does not want any scrutiny of its own very poor behaviour in Government.

What Labour has chosen to do is to put itself above the law. It decided that the only way it could win the 2005 election was to overspend the electoral cap, and it did so by a huge margin. When the Government knew that it did not have the money to spend from its usual backers, it dived into the taxpayer purse and flogged it. Tomorrow the Auditor-General will tell this House exactly that; that Labour chose illegally to take taxpayer funding and apply it for election purposes. That is why the Government has to pay back the $446,000 for a start. We can expect that there will be a much bigger sum attached to that.

We know how Labour hates to be put in a position where it looks bad. We could see that today by the way its members have been speaking. So they have cooked up this neat little deal where the Auditor-General’s report will not see the light of the parliamentary day until after 2 o’clock tomorrow. What is the significance of that? The significance is that this House itself cannot discuss that report until the following Tuesday at the very earliest, giving the Labour Party and its 9th floor spin doctors 5 days to condition the public to whatever response it might make. That is the behaviour one would expect from a Government led by a dictator. It is the sort of behaviour that confirms the deep corruption that runs through the veins of this Government. It is the sort of behaviour that New Zealanders are overwhelmingly rejecting.

Labour members can stand up and talk all they like about the National Party. What they really need to do is look at what New Zealanders are saying about them, because they are not listening to the sharp rhetoric about health; they are not interested in Mr Maharey’s grand pronouncements about education; they do not believe Dr Cullen’s pronouncements about the economy; and, above all, they do not believe the Prime Minister when she says Labour has not broken the rules. The only way to fix it is to first pay the money back, then recognise the fact that this theft of taxpayer money—this inappropriate misuse of taxpayer money—led to an election overspend and a breach of section 214B of the Electoral Act in a way that was knowing and is described by that Act as a corrupt practice.

New Zealanders do not like that sort of thing. That is why they are speaking so loudly and giving Labour a clear direction. So we are disappointed that the opportunities for the Opposition to publicly state tomorrow an opinion on not only the Auditor-General’s report but also the Speaker’s response to it inside this House is being denied by a Government that has, for far too long, believed itself to be above the law. I want to send a message to the small parties that prop up Labour and keep it in Government. There was a great saying that mud sticks. Well, it does. People who support that crowd will go down with them.

For the edification of listeners, that last speaker was a version of the National Party blunderbuss, Gerry Brownlee. Amongst his famed historical actions in politics he will be remembered for tossing people downstairs, and a few other things. I think there was a breach of a law or two there, but we would not want—I was going to say the “pot” calling the kettle black—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sensitive to those sorts of remarks, but I want to make it clear that I stood up in a court and took the medicine, because that was the right thing to do, and I want to know why the Labour Party finds that so objectionable. Why cannot the Labour Party stand up and take its medicine? And why, whenever the Labour Party is in a tight spot, do its members pick up mud and fling it?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fair enough.

He admitted he broke the law and I suppose that is good. I wonder how the person who got thrown down the stairs feels.

I like to read the odd book; I am told Mr Brownlee likes to read the odd recipe book. I am reminded of the great man Abraham Lincoln. He said—and I think it applies directly to Mr Brownlee—“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.” I think that speaks volumes for Mr Brownlee, the National Party blunderbuss. He talks about what New Zealanders like and dislike in respect of leadership. Well, I ask him if he shares the view of New Zealanders in respect of Dr Brash, who has forgetfulness about certain meetings. Does he share the view of New Zealanders who do not like leaders who say one thing and do another? They do not like leaders who say, for instance, that they never knew about Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. I know that Mr Brownlee, deep, deep down—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a point of order that goes right to the heart of the matter. All I want to ask Mr Cosgrove is whether the Prime Minister did not understand or know she was going 180 kilometres an hour across the Canterbury Plains. Did the Prime Minister forget that she signed a painting? Did the Prime Minister forget the arrangement with Mr Yelash?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There has been a little bit of tit for tat. Mr Brownlee has had his 5 minutes, and has gone close to 7 now, so we will just leave that.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really have to make some remarks about the tactics that Gerry Brownlee is using in this House at the moment. He stands up, take points of order, looks away from you, and then ignores you. He is simply trifling with the Chair. I believe if he tries it again he should be ejected from this House.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I could not do better than to agree with the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Speaker, you made an observation that Mr Brownlee had now extended his speech to 7 minutes at the expense of my colleague. Can I seek your reassurance that my colleague will get his 5 minutes and not lose them to Mr Brownlee’s rather unfortunate abuse of the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank members for raising those issues. I think Mr Brownlee will be well satisfied that he, in fact, has had an extended time with the issues he raised. That is OK. Mr Cosgrove, the clock was stopped while those points of order went on. Thank you, Mr Donnelly, for your input to that. I will take it on board.

I am grateful for Mr Donnelly’s intervention, but I have never in my life needed any protection from Mr Brownlee. No one does—apart from somebody who ended up at the bottom of a staircase, and maybe one or two attendants at the local McDonald’s or Burger King. I do not know.

But I ask what Mr Brownlee really thinks of Dr Brash, deep down in places he will not talk about. I wonder what he really thought when Dr Brash went out and said “I didn’t meet them”—and we know whom we are talking about—and then came back and said he did. There is a word for that. I am reminded again of a wonderful quote by Harry S Truman. I am in quote mode today. Harry S Truman said—and I choose my words carefully; they are not about anyone in this House, of course—about the then American President, Richard Nixon: “He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in.” That is what Harry S said about “Tricky Dickie”, but the question is: what does Gerry Brownlee, the leader in waiting—so he thinks—really think about Dr Brash’s tactics? What does he really think about Dr Brash, who said before the election there would be tax cuts across the board, “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. Somebody else said that, but it is close enough. How does he feel now that Dr Brash comes out and says: “Well, what I said before the election …” It is after the election and there is a flip-flop all over the place. There is a word that could replace “flip-flop”, but we will not go into that.

What does Gerry Brownlee really feel about that? Hang on, the blunderbuss has deflated. He called me a “stuffed shirt” when I got up and interjected on him. At least my shirt is not stuffed with my lunch, as his is. How does Gerry Brownlee feel about Dr Brash’s continuing—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those remarks are becoming personal.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is absolutely nothing on Mr Cosgrove that is as big as anything on me.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK.

It took a good 4 minutes to think about it. It is interesting to read what the Independent said about Gerry Brownlee way back. It stated that Brownlee—that is, Mr Brownlee—is an English supporter in the Brash - English leadership contest and voted for the latter, for Mr English, because he wanted to see “Brash eradicated as the future National Party leadership contender for all time.” The problem with Mr Brownlee is that he hitched his enormous saddlebags to the wagon train of Dr Brash, and now if Dr Brash goes he is gone.

Nobody would accuse Mr Brownlee of being a lightweight. He has had praise from that loyal member of the National Party, Maurice Williamson. Maurice apparently said of him: “Gerry? I think Gerry is a good MP, really effective in the House. He’s got style, he’s got mana about him, he’s a warm person.” I would have thought that getting praise from Maurice Williamson was a bit like getting praise from Attila the Hun—a death wish. But Gerry Brownlee sits there.

There is a little bit of decency, I think, in Mr Brownlee. At least he does have a sense of humour. But I know, and he knows, deep down in places he will not talk about, that he is very, very uncomfortable with the direction in which Dr Brash is taking the National Party. He knows it; he as good as said so in respect of Dr Brash doing a Ronald Reagan. Dr Brash said: “I cannot recall who I met with after the election”—$1.2 million later. Then, on Agenda a couple of weeks ago, Dr Brash said: “I might have met with somebody from the Brethren, but I am not sure.” Then he said: “I am not going to tell you.”, and then he said: “I am not sure whether I took the diary entry in or out.” Gerry Brownlee is uncomfortable, he knows it, and he knows exactly where he is going.

People who are listening in to this afternoon’s debate on the radio, and listening in particular to the contributions from the Government side of the House, will no doubt have formed the conclusion that the Government speakers are new back-benchers, unencumbered by any form of public office or responsibility, and without any ministerial warrants to concern themselves with—individuals with nothing better to do than to sit down and invent insults about members on the opposite side of the House. Well, I have very bad news indeed for the New Zealanders who have listened to those contributions and the torrents of personal abuse and invective coming from the other side of House. I say to those ladies and gentlemen that that was their Government.

Time after time we have listened to Ministers from this Government—people who hold warrants, and with portfolios and responsibilities to discharge—who had the opportunity to come to this House today to tell us about the good work they were doing for New Zealand and New Zealanders. One after the other they have done nothing more than stand up and hurl abuse at members of the Opposition. I want to say how pleased I am that New Zealanders can see through all of that. As poll after poll shows us at the moment, New Zealanders can see that the members opposite are worthless, and have no vision and no policies. They have no intention of doing good for their country. All they come to do in Parliament is to throw mud and insults. The New Zealand public are on to them, and I am very pleased to see that.

Tomorrow we are to see from the Controller and Auditor-General, an independent Officer of Parliament, the report that Helen Clark never wanted to see. It is the report that Helen Clark has worked tirelessly for months to intimidate the Auditor-General into having changed. That report tells us two very important things. First, it tells us that the $460,000 Labour Party pledge card involved the unlawful use of taxpayers’ money. That will be the key finding of the report. But the report will leave hanging an even bigger conclusion that we will invite New Zealanders to consider in the days subsequent to its release. It will tell us that if the pledge card expenditure was not a lawful use of parliamentary funds, it could be only one other thing, and that is the expenditure of funds on an election expense within the meaning of the Electoral Act.

Tomorrow’s report from the Auditor-General will mean not just that the $460,000 pledge card expenditure was unlawful but also, as a consequence of that ruling, that the money spent by the Labour Party in the last 2 weeks of the campaign involved a breach of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which describes the nature of a corrupt practice. That is the news Helen Clark has tried for months to ensure that we would not hear in this House. That is the news that the Labour Party fears hearing.

And what have we seen from our Prime Minister over the last few weeks? We have seen a naked attempt to intimidate an Officer of Parliament—the Controller and Auditor-General—into changing his point of view. I will quote the Prime Minister. She said that the Auditor-General should “go back to the drawing board”. She said that “he has a serious credibility problem”. This is not a case of the Prime Minister talking about a member on the Opposition side of the House; this is our Prime Minister telling the Controller and Auditor-General, an independent Officer of Parliament, that he has “a serious credibility problem” and he should “go back to the drawing board”. I cannot imagine a more obvious and naked attempt to intimidate an independent Officer of Parliament. The Prime Minister went further, and said to him that he should report to Parliament as Auditor-General only and not use his powers as Controller. She said: “We are saying to him that this is an inappropriate use of the Controller’s power.”—a clear edict from the Prime Minister to the Auditor-General.

For the listening audience, this is a new back-bencher speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must speak to the Chamber through the Speaker, not to the audience.

I have been a member of this House as a Labour MP for nearly a year. It is a privilege to be an MP, and it does not hurt to remind all the members in this House of that fact from time to time. But the greatest privilege for me is being part of a Labour-led Government that is delivering for ordinary working families—despite the invective we have heard for weeks and weeks, which has so appalled the nation. The things that I particularly celebrate are those things that make the biggest difference to the people whom I have worked for for the last 15 years.

They include the Employment Relations Amendment Act, whereby vulnerable workers no longer have to worry about going to work only to lose their jobs the next day, and Working for Families, which is one of the greatest, most significant poverty-reduction measures taken in decades, with tax relief going where it should be going—to working families who are working to raise the next generation. There is KiwiSaver, which is a very exciting venture, whereby superannuation will be on the agenda in many workplaces for people who in the past could only dream of it. Savings will become a topic for discussion in every workplace now, where before only those with real bargaining power were able to have a meaningful dialogue about superannuation contributions.

We all know about the jobs. We all know about the unemployment rate. We know that our kids have a hope of finding decent work now, and that they will not languish in the unemployment queue like they used to. We also know about the 10,000 Modern Apprenticeships and the record numbers in industry training, where workers now have a real chance to have their skills recognised. The removal of interest on student loans has made a huge difference to ordinary working families, particularly those on modest incomes. It puts tertiary study within the reach of those people. And just this week there was the announcement of a 4 percent increase in the average weekly incomes of New Zealanders, which goes along with the significant increases in the minimum wage during the time of the Labour-led Government. It is those things that people talk to me about when I am out and about, and those are the things that count for people—not the incessant witch-hunt being conducted by National and its weird friends.

It must be quite depressing to be in a party that is in total disarray. National has no unity around its leader. The plotting goes on and, meanwhile, that “man alone”, Dr Don Brash, continues to divide. The latest attempt to write off Māori and reinvent Ōrewa I is insulting and offensive. It is a disgrace!

It must be particularly depressing for those members on the opposite side with naked and frustrated leadership ambitions, like Simon Power—the man who was promoted by a demotion. Where does he line up? Well, we know where he lines up on foreign affairs. It is called follow the US and Britain, and follow them blindly wherever they go. From the Government side of the House it is very hard to know what that member stands for, other than standing for Simon Power. And who would be a good running mate for Simon Power? How about Dr Lockwood Smith? They have a lot in common. They have both been demoted by Dr Brash, and both—as the late, great David Lange would have said—have uranium on their breath. That member wanted a US thinktank to help manipulate Kiwi opinion on our nuclear-free status. What a pair they would make!

I am really glad to be part of a Government that is united around our leader and focused, because in the end it is deeds, not words, that people judge us by. In my first year of work as a Labour MP, I see the difference that the policies of the Labour-led Government are making, and I see the difference with a Government that values all communities and all peoples. This is a country of good people. It is a country going forward under this Government, because Labour is getting on with the things that matter. The people know it, communities show it, and society is going for it.

The Green Party is delighted that climate change is finally, at long last, on the political agenda. We are delighted, too, that the two main parties, instead of just trading insults and sleaze with one another, are starting to tackle the most serious issue of our time. We are delighted that the National Party, after years of denying climate change, campaigning against the Kyoto Protocol, and campaigning against the so-called “fart tax” and the carbon charge, is finally claiming to take climate change seriously. We are delighted, too, that Labour, having abandoned its only real climate change policy—a carbon tax, which is the most efficient and simple way of putting a price signal into our economy to reduce our greenhouse emissions—is finally starting to work seriously on a climate change policy.

Far from feeling threatened, or being in competition about this new-found interest in climate change, as some commentators have suggested, the Green Party would like nothing more than to see Labour and National competing with us and with each other for environmental credibility. We would like nothing more than to see Labour and National competing on introducing far-reaching policies to reduce carbon in our economy, and to help make a transition to a carbon-free economy. Better still, we would like nothing better than to see a cross-party agreement on climate change in this House.

But the jury is still out on just how serious and how committed the Government and the National Party really are in addressing climate change. Are they prepared to do more than nibble around the margins and engage in “greenwashing”? Are they prepared to tackle the really hard issues like capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and transport—air and road transport—which are the major sources of emissions? Do they have the political courage to tackle these issues, rather than just nibble around the edges and compromise on this issue, which, above all, requires political will to address it? Transport emissions make up 21 percent of greenhouse emissions. Those emissions have increased by a staggering 63 percent since 1990, so why is the transport sector completely out of bounds for both Labour and National?

Why will the Government not tackle greenhouse gas emissions? Why is the Government putting $1.5 billion into new roads, in the certain knowledge that these new roads will contribute to increasing our carbon emissions, which it will then, perhaps, pay for in carbon credits to Russia? Why is there such a disconnection between what the Government says its policy is on climate change and what the Government is actually doing in areas like roading and by allowing the rail network to be further undermined? The linchpin of National’s policy is a tradable emissions permit scheme in the electricity sector. We acknowledge that this is a very good start. We are not making petty comments about it, as some other parties have done. It is a good start, but how serious is the proposal? What will the level of the cap be, and how will the permits be allocated? Will they be handed out for free to current polluters, and will the cap be so high that it allows our already far too high carbon emissions and greenhouse emissions to continue?

The fact is that New Zealand is one of the worst per capita greenhouse polluters in the world. I believe that the New Zealand public are far ahead of the major political parties in this House on the issue, and it is good to see that those parties are starting to catch up with it. I hope all MPs in this House have seen An Inconvenient Truth, and are aware of the inconvenient truth that we will have to transform our entire economy, and perhaps reduce 70 to 90 percent of carbon emissions in our economy, if we are to get serious about tackling climate change. We need political will and we need political courage if we are going to tackle this issue. I believe that the public of New Zealand want leadership and political will; they do not want compromise and capitulation on this issue. So the Green Party sincerely hopes we will go beyond “greenwashing” in this House, we will get serious, and climate change will be one of the most significant issues on the political agenda in this coming term. Thank you.

I have been listening to the debate this afternoon—all of it—and people would have been wondering what was happening in this House. Today we saw a competition between Mr Steve Maharey and Mr Mallard for the biggest amount of sleaze and dirt that they could throw at the National Party and its leader. Well, so much for good behaviour in the House! What we saw was a disgrace.

I have a thought for members today, and it is this: “My signature is on it, I am accountable for it, and Labour in Government will be held to it by me.” Who said that?

💬 Hon Member: Helen Clark.

This little red pledge card—“My commitment to you.”—with a picture of some woman on it who I understand is supposed to be Helen Clark, is what all of that behaviour today was about. It is because this Labour Government needs to pay back some money—that is what it is all about.

This afternoon we heard from Mr Peter Dunne, who put out a press release apologising to the Auditor-General for the very personal remarks he made. I say good on Mr Peter Dunne for doing that and for admitting he had made a mistake, because people do make mistakes. Now we have a situation where this Labour Government is facing oblivion. The National Party has paid back the money it should not have spent. The Greens have said that they will pay it back—they are going to tithe or something, but, whatever it is, they will pay it back. United Future has now said it will pay the money back. The Māori Party has paid its money back. The Progressives did not misuse any money at all, so good for them. And who is not paying it back?

💬 John Hayes: Labour.

The Labour Party will not pay it back. It has engaged in weeks and weeks of muckraking, of filth, of getting all the information it thought it had got out of people’s rubbish bins during the election campaign—the sort of behaviour we saw brought up again today in the House. Labour does not seem to understand that it is digging itself further and further into a hole, because the people of New Zealand actually do not like that behaviour. They do not want it; they want a fair deal. They know that if they misuse someone else’s money, not only do they have to pay it back but they get charged with it. In this situation the police were called in by the Chief Electoral Officer. But, suddenly, somehow, the police did not want to prosecute it.

💬 David Bennett: It’s called communism.

Well, I say to Mr Bennett that I do not know what it is called, but it is certainly not something most people in New Zealand would find applied to them.

But if we want more detail, we can just look at this little card, because it tells us, with taxpayer money, that for more information we can go to www.labour.org.nz, or write freepost, Helen Clark, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. That is what it tells us on the little red card that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. I suggest that the taxpayers of New Zealand do exactly that, and write freepost, Helen Clark, Parliament Buildings, Wellington with one message: “Pay it back now!”.

Every single one of us knows there is fraud in the benefit numbers, there is fraud amongst beneficiaries, there are liable parents who are not paying their bills—we know all of that. And what do we expect from those people? We expect them to pay the money back. Those people do not have the sorts of resources that highly paid people in Cabinet have; they also do not have the many advisers to tell them not to nick the money. Yet what did Labour do? It took the money. Labour was warned that it was over budget, and it was warned not to use the money, but it still went ahead and did so—that is its behaviour.

In 2004—2 years ago—I wrote to the Auditor-General about another of Helen Clark’s schemes. That one concerned a calendar paid for with taxpayers’ money that was sent to health professionals, that talked about the many wonderful things of past Labour Governments, from the day they were first invented. I wrote to the Auditor-General saying that was a misuse of parliamentary money. The Auditor-General said that yes, I was right. After that, I wrote to the Speaker of the House pointing out the misuse of taxpayers’ money, and suggesting the party should pay it back. But the Speaker replied that it was up to the member involved. That person was Helen Clark.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.