General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. People ask me, and they have asked me for some time, why it is that I have vigorously opposed the covert agenda of Don Brash and some of his colleagues. Well, the answer to that question is becoming clearer by the day. We recognise something in Don Brash that few others would have, or could have. Some of us were in the National Party in the late 1980s and early 1900s when Ruth Richardson, and a covert group of extreme neo-liberals, sought to undermine all that was once good about the National Party.

The puppet masters, driven by a rabid and heartless scorched earth economic philosophy, ravaged this great country by exporting the radical policies of privatisation and massive sell-offs. We all lived through this, and some of us made a principled stand back then—and we left. We are making a principled stand again, now. They are sad about that.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You got sacked.

I was the only real leader that National ever had. Does National realise that? It is obvious. That is why those members are sitting over there, with their noses pressed against the window of power. They will do so for a long, long time—that is, until they change their ways.

We saw in Don Brash, in 2003, a devout disciple of the far-right agenda, and a man whom the puppet masters could again manipulate into their subversive agenda. We went through, as a party, the ignominy of them pilfering our policies in utter ignorance and never being able to explain them, when asked on TV what did it mean and what was it all about. We, along with others, have had to endure National’s smug attitude and the frenzy surrounding the election spending imbroglio. Talk about being hoist with their own petard—pay back the GST. It is as clear as daylight—pay the GST. [Interruption] Oh, no, we have the money to pay. We just want to know whether it is lawful, and we are going to find out.

We have had to watch the most unbelievable obsession of the media over the false prophet of Ōrewa inflicting rank and division upon an unsuspecting nation.

💬 Judith Collins: Aw!

Judith Collins says “Aw!”. Of course she says “Aw!”. She is one of them. The first thing she did was stab a good lawyer in the back—out at Clevedon. That is typical of that sort. She went behind his back, conspired against a sitting member, and it shows. That is why she is not really popular in National.

💬 David Bennett: She is. You’re not.

Oh, no she is not. I can see the looks in the eyes on the second row and the third row. They think she is a bit of a lightweight. They do, and they are right. But there are some good people in the parliamentary National Party—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Name two.

There are at least six. We know that, and they are the ones who helped to write a book. Because what we had here was covert activity with big business, with the Exclusive Brethren, and we had outright deception, day after day, in the media. They have been found out.

💬 Judith Collins: Tell us more about Bob Clarkson, who beat you.

The member should not make a lot of noise like that. It does not help her cause. I do not why she is asking about taking a beating, because obviously there is not one present, apart from herself. And it shows. There is a constant cackle from members opposite, because they are embarrassed by the fact that soon a book will come out to show the public what they are all about.

I know the National Party. I know there are members out there making cakes, walking up and down the village streets and hamlets of this country, and knocking on doors trying to sell the blue flag. But when the book comes out, they will know that all that work, all their going to conferences, all the remits were utterly for nothing. Because the National Party is up for hire. The National Party has been bought.

💬 David Bennett: You took all the baubles of power.

Does he know what a bauble is? A bauble is a trinket not worth having. What on earth is he talking about? A bauble, for the benefit of that illiterate fellow from Hamilton, is a trinket not worth having. What on earth are the media talking about? It is high time someone got the dictionary out and tried to understand what words mean. Because words are important in the game of politics.

That speech was made by a very, very sad and disappointed politician, and I say to Winston Peters: “Winston, get over it, move on, forget about it; we have.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, I know what the member is going to say.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: One would think that when a member has been here for some time, he might learn a few Standing Orders, and in the case of Mr Brownlee clearly he cannot grasp what the import of that is, but he cannot use a person’s first name; and particularly in my case, seeing he is so junior to me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Peters. There was no need for that last comment.

Be fair, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me start again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): OK

I withdraw and apologise for referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters as Winston, and simply say that we forgave that guy, once called Luigi, for the way in which he treated the National Party in the 1990s, so why can he not move on?

The reality is that in the last 24 hours we have seen the peace activist trying to make his peace with Helen Clark. There is no doubt about that. This man has a long history of all sorts of alarmist publications. Nicky Hager is simply a man who has very low credibility. He is the man who recently told New Zealand that the SIS was delving through the activities of the Māori Party, and Helen Clark thought: “Here is an opportunity.”, so she sent in Justice Neazor, who discovered that no such truth existed, at all. This guy had, in fact, been duped by the source in that case. Then there was the case he brought up of the engineers in Iraq. Nicky Hager alleged that members of the New Zealand Defence Force who were there as part of the reconstruction effort were fighting alongside British soldiers under British command. That was utter rubbish. It was wrong.

This is the man who wrote the book Seeds of Distrust, in which he attacked Helen Clark. What was the response from Labour at the time? He was not credible, it was a load of nonsense, and it was untrue and contained scurrilous allegations; it was written by a man with no credibility. This is the same Nicky Hager who wrote the book Secrets and Lies in 1999, in which he spoke about the Timberlands scandal. None of it was true. Not one of the pages in that book carried a single truth. It was roundly discredited. He is a man who indulges in intrigue and in the activities of scurrilously besmirching any individual he does not like, without any care whatsoever. He is a man who, a couple of days ago, would have been described by Helen Clark as completely disreputable, but who, in a day or so, will suddenly be the great saviour—apparently—of Labour.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This is the rescue party? You’re the rescue party?

I say to Clayton Cosgrove that the book will be published, it will be a joke, and everything that Labour has been saying for the last 12 months will blow away in the wind.

Winston Peters stood in this House and waved around the emails. He said that this was it; this was going to cause the trouble. And as soon as he found out that there was some investigation, he magically had them destroyed in his office. Helen Clark had those emails. Helen Clark knew that a book was to be published. She said so on the tiles on television just a few months ago. They have been working with Nicky Hager, apparently to put together what was originally described as a “telephone book full of emails”.

Well, the reality is that this is a series of hollow, nothing allegations. They will not stack up any better than Nicky Hager’s recent outburst against the Echelon system—Secret Power, a book he wrote about something the Defence Force was supposed to be doing with the Orions. That was totally discredited. I ask anyone to stand up in the House today and say of one published work by Nick Hager that it is the truth and that it does stack up. Not one publication does.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Hollow Men.

I hear Dr Cullen over there yelling out that the publication will be The Hollow Men. Well, it is no surprise to us that Dr Cullen has that title firmly fixed in his brain. We know that he has been in cahoots with Nicky Hager. We know that he gave Nicky Hager the title of the book, because he first mentioned the theme about 18 months ago, in his concluding speech at a Labour Party conference.

When a Government is discovered to be corrupt, when it has lost its moral mandate to govern, and when it comes into the House and learns that the health system is a mess and the education systems lacks any accountability, and it has to put up with the ignominy of a minor coalition partner grandstanding over a senior citizens’ card that means nothing, then we know why it is behind Nicky Hager’s book.

If I were in the same party as Gerry Brownlee and if I were ever in trouble, I would hope like hell someone else was sent to rescue me. Gerry Brownlee could scarcely contain himself at the thought of being one step closer to his ambition. Bill English is the same. What did the New Zealand Herald say about Bill English? It said he would get over his bitterness—but he will get over his bitterness, he hopes, by exacting utu on the man who betrayed him and stabbed him in the back.

Any credibility that Dr Brash had left must surely have been destroyed by his taking out an injunction last week. In my entire time in politics I cannot recall any political leader taking out a court injunction in order to stop his or her own actions and views on public issues from being published. That is what Don Brash is doing. I have never seen a leader so scared that the exposure of his actions and his thinking will reveal deceit and double standards. There are only two things keeping Don Brash in his seat today. One is the mutual distrust and hatred between the pretenders who want his job: Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, John Key, and, some even say, Simon Power, such is the depth of the desperation of the National Party. The second thing, of course, is the indecisiveness of John Key and the uncertainty among his colleagues as to whether he has what it takes.

What Don Brash is suppressing, Mr Chairman, is not details about his private life. I do not give a damn about his private life; I just wish he would be consistent in his judgment of others, given his private life. What Dr Brash is suppressing—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the speech, but I do think we need some decorum. We should refer to the Speaker as the Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not take any inference from that.

What Dr Brash is suppressing are his actual thoughts about public issues and his real motivation and actions, which he does not care to have exposed. This is the man who says he believes in transparency and openness as Leader of the Opposition, but does not apply those same principles to his own thoughts and actions. Perhaps Dr Brash fears that the exposure of his cables and emails will show that what he thinks is not what he says, that the people he represents are not the mainstream that he claims to represent, and that, far from being the innocent and rather naive politician that he would like to portray himself as, he is a deeply cynical man in everything that he has done. He does not want the private actions of Dr Brash contrasted with what he says publicly, because that is death for Dr Brash.

I have not seen the book. I am told, however, that it contains a number of emails, among other things, from National Party secretary Steven Joyce, from Don Brash himself, from John Key—interestingly, the man who claimed he had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren—and from the Exclusive Brethren themselves. Will Dr Brash now admit, before it is exposed, that he knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s plans to spend $1 million - plus on electing a National Government months before he denied any knowledge of these plans? He claimed that he knew nothing about them when, in fact, he knew all along what they intended to do. That will be shown in the emails.

Will the National Party admit that for months it had been communicating over the wording of the substance—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is referring to emails. Standing Order 111, “Matters awaiting judicial decision”, applies here, and the member cannot refer to the emails. I ask that he withdraw those comments and apologise for them under Standing Order 111(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. The member speaking has freedom of speech and, if he considers it right, he has the opportunity to raise that issue through debate in the House. He is doing just that.

It is exactly freedom of speech that this debate is about. Dr Brash does not want the public to know—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect very carefully on that ruling. During the 20 years that I have been in this House, members have been given very stern warnings from Speakers that if any matter is before the court, members do not have the right to override the directions of the court and raise it in the House. In fact, a Minister today refused to answer a question on a particular issue because the case involved—even though the defendant has been found guilty—has not yet gone to sentencing.

You have just said that it is up to members of this House to decide themselves if they wish to raise any matter, whether or not it is before the court. Mr Assistant Speaker, I think that flies in the face of every ruling I have heard over my time, and I ask you to reflect on it seriously.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution and refer him to Speakers’ ruling 32/4. The issue is not currently before the court. Speakers’ ruling 32/4 states: “While members are not bound in the House by a suppression of name order, they should use their privilege to break such an order only in the most exceptional circumstances. Members should take care never to abuse the privilege of free speech, and, in that respect, they should respect the position of the judiciary in the judiciary’s sphere, just as members would expect the judiciary to respect the privileges of Parliament.”

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, I do not want to make it sound as though we are particularly touchy about this. I am sure you will allow the debate to flow. But the point that was raised by Mr Williamson remains open. The reality is that what we are talking about is an interim injunction while the decision about an injunction is being considered by the court. Further to that, there are three applications before the court, I understand, to have the interim injunction quashed. So to say that this matter is not before the court is wrong.

Having said that, I make it very clear that we do accept your decision with regard to the freedom of speech in this matter and that it will be observed by us. But I think that just racing to that particular determination might, in other cases, do a little damage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his considered reply. We live in a democracy, and there is freedom of speech, but I ask the member to be careful in what he says to the House.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on the point of order.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: This is a new point of order. The matter is still before the courts. An aspect of it may be dealt with by way of interlocutory application for an interim injunction. The matter is still before the court and the substantive matter is yet to be tried, so, in actual fact, it is quite wrong to say the matter has been dealt with.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: As an ex parte injunction, this is not an interlocutory injunction. It remains standing until a party files an application to review. It is a final judgment on an ex parte application.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the honourable member that there are subsequent actions. The member needs to be careful about the issues he raises. Under those circumstances, I now call the member.

The National Party is deeply embarrassed by what may be revealed about Dr Brash, because the fact has come out that this is not a stolen or hacked email; these are emails, or letters, or information given by members deep within the National Party who are probably known personally by Dr Brash.

The title of the book being suppressed by the party that claims to believe in freedom of speech is The Hollow Men, a title taken from a poem by T S Eliot. It implies a lack of principle, substance, and decency at the core of the National Party leadership—not simply in Dr Brash, but in Mr Key and others, as well. Maybe “hollow” is not the right word, because the National Party core may be devoid of principle and policy substance, but it is amply filled, as we will see, with ambition, cynicism, double standards, and dishonesty.

I say to Dr Brash that it is time to go, but do us one last favour and lift the injunction so that we can see the evidence ourselves and determine the truth. For the National Party, the T S Eliot poem may be prophetic. It ends with the words that the world will end, “Not with a bang but a whimper.” So it will be for Dr Brash.

I invite the House to imagine the conversation that occurred at the Labour Party campaign committee where its members first laid out their plan for finances and communication for the 2005 election year. I wonder whether the conversation went the way that Heather Simpson told the police it went. She said: “The pledge card is a normal part of our parliamentary communications. Of course it will be funded by the Parliamentary Service. It is nothing to do with the election campaign.” I do not think that is what was said. The fact that we do not have a verbatim email or transcript of the conversation does not mean there is any lack of doubt about what would actually have been said, which would be along these lines: “If we fund the pledge card from the Parliamentary Service, it will cough up half a million dollars that we don’t have to find ourselves, and then we’ll be able to breach the election spending cap and, what’s more, use public money to do it.” We would be deeply cynical of any representation of that conversation.

Imagine the conversation that went on before the election around the pledge of 20 hours free early childhood care. Steve Maharey has been telling early childhood sector audiences around the country: “It was a snappy election slogan and we knew we could never do it.” It is true; he cannot do it. He cannot give all 3 and 4-year-olds 20 hours free early childhood care. Any transcript or email of that conversation would, of course, look deeply cynical.

I thought it was telling today that even Labour Party members laughed at the prospect that Dr Cullen would regard Nicky Hager as a credible enough person to talk to. Did members see the laughter? That is because Labour Party members know that Nicky Hager is a left-wing stirrer. This is what they have said about him. Helen Clark said: “My advice as a Minister, from a long-time public servant, is that Nicky Hager’s book is a work of fiction. I think it is clear the stories have no substance.” Then she said: “It is an outrage, these conspiracy theories.” Here is Pete Hodgson talking about “corngate”: “This story is a beat-up of mammoth proportions.” And Trevor Mallard: “There is a wide variety of fiction available in New Zealand, including Nicky Hager’s Seeds of Distrust.”

Every time this man has written a book it has not lived up to the hype—every time. I can guarantee this one will not live up to the hype. This is a man who finds some dots and, by the time he has joined a few of them, he has a mountain. He joins the dots and creates a vast right-wing conspiracy out of what would honestly be the normal business of political parties dealing with the contending pressures of lobby groups, public opinion, media, daily tactics, and the strong desire to win an election.

Everyone in this House knows that a transcription or description of any Labour Party meeting about anything to do with a campaign or, in fact, almost any decision at all, would look, to the public, as juicy, exciting, cynical, tricky—

💬 Hon Member: Tricky!

There is no doubt about that. Is it not rich to be lectured on principles by a party whose Prime Minister has been interviewed by the police more times than every other Prime Minister in the 20th century put together? Is it not a bit rich to be lectured by a party about principles, against whom three prima facie cases have been determined by the police in the time it has been in Government? Is it not a bit rich to be lectured on principles by a party whose members set out at the last election deliberately to break the cap on election spending, with the cynical calculation that they would get away with it?

The 1925 poem by T S Eliot says it all:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Our dried voices, when

We whisper together

Are quiet and meaningless

As wind in dry grass

Or rats’ feet over broken glass

In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,

Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

What a great description of the Don Brash - led National Party; a “paralysed force”—paralysed since Don Brash walked into the National Party caucus room without the numbers but came out with the prize because he delivered the simple message to that caucus: “No Brash, no cash”. That is what he took into that room, that day. He said that if the leadership were to change to him that day, the money would flow, and boy, was he right because money bucketed down. It did not just flow, it bucketed down.

One of the emails we can talk about in this House—because it has been produced in the inquiry into electoral spending—is where the Exclusive Brethren ask how they put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of “getting party votes for National as this is the only way change will come about.” That was absolutely disclosed in an environment where National wanted to keep that information hidden.

We know where some of the money came from then, but only because it has been disclosed through that process. We have a good idea where the rest has come from.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be difficult for some members, but during the course of debate the difference between debating material and the truth and facts should be apparent. It is a fact that the piece of paper the member talks about was not sourced from the National Party but from the Chief Electoral Officer. To suggest that a communication of the Chief Electoral Officer somehow indicates some sort of bad dealings or skulduggery is quite wrong. The only skulduggery in the last campaign was Labour’s inappropriate rorting of taxpayer funds.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I have taken note of what you said, and I ask the member to be careful.

I can understand the sensitivity of that member. I was saying that the public would not have known, if the email to the Electoral Commission had not been disclosed in the course of an investigation. It showed that the Exclusive Brethren were prepared to spend $1.2 million, which the National Party did not want us to know about, to get party votes for National. They wanted to make sure that it did not show up on the National Party’s electoral spend.

No wonder members are sensitive on that side of the House; they could not spend $1.2 million on their entire electoral campaign without going over the limit, but they were quite happy to have $1.2 million spent on their behalf, behind the scenes, in a dirty, tricky way.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a pamphlet, produced at an estimated cost of half a million dollars by—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated. Mr Brownlee, you have been here a long time and generally that sort of thing happens at the end of a member’s speech, rather than interrupt it. It can be seen as a frivolous interjection, which can lead to disorder. I ask the member to seek leave at the normal time.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I understand the sensitivity the members opposite have, but we are seeing a concerted campaign today to break up speeches made by members on the Government side of the House, and the latest was one of the worst I have seen, particularly from a senior member. Accordingly I seek leave to have the member’s time started again in order that she can deliver her speech without that sort of tacky intervention from the other side.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

💬 Hon Member: They just can’t take the heat.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The matter has been dealt with.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to question your ruling at all, but I recall earlier in the debate that you acquiesced to a request from an Opposition member, on very, very frivolous grounds, to have the clock restarted. I invite you, if you would, to reflect on that as you may be reflecting on that ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I always reflect on those things, Mr Cosgrove, and I am aware of the situation.

I am aware, obviously, that the members opposite may want to table a particular piece of information around the Council of Trade Unions providing a pamphlet to some of its members, in support of the Labour Party. That was disclosed in our electoral expenses. It was put in as part of our electoral expenses. I think it is a bit rich for members on the other side of the House to refer to that, when they know perfectly well that $1.2 million was available to be spent on their behalf to gain party votes for National, and not one cent of that was disclosed in their electoral return.

We all know that there was a quid pro quo and for that number of “quids”, there must have been an awful lot of “quos”. We now want to know what that was all about. What was hidden in the paper trail that the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to hide from the public? Why did Dr Brash seek an interim injunction last Friday when he has known about the leaked emails for months, yet according to his own words he did not know that a book was going to be published this week? How coincidental is that? I bet Gerry Brownlee is even regretting his own comments last week, when he said that anyone who used email would welcome the decision of the court in respect of the interim injunction. This is not the case, and I think the New Zealand Herald editorial says it all: “Blanket injunctions of the kind that Dr Brash has obtained are not healthy for our democracy. Those who ask to be entrusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be an open book.”

That is the bottom line. That is what we keep coming back to. The National Party does not want its dealings to be an open book, and I say that its members are not to be entrusted with power. Don Brash has something to hide, John Key has something to hide, and others on that side of the House have a lot to hide. They do not want public scrutiny of the types of negotiations that occurred between the secret funders and the hierarchy of the National Party. They are not entitled to be entrusted with power. Anyone who thinks that Don Brash will be the only one who will benefit from the injunction should think again. I hope we find out more about those other individuals who knew a lot more about what was going on than they have cared to disclose.

John Key is trying to distance himself from this because he knows that it will taint him with guilt by association. Well, guilty he is and associated he is, and we will find out the truth of this. Although he is their aspirant leader, he is very close to the secret funders and far more acceptable to them than Bill English will ever be.

I have been waiting for months now, since the start of this year, for a Labour member of Parliament to take a 5-minute slot in the general debate and use that time to stand up and defend the actions of his or her colleague Taito Phillip Field. On no occasion has one member taken the opportunity to get up and back that member of Parliament. So while big issues are going on around New Zealand, such as the fact that Mr Taito Phillip Field is on full pay and apparently doing very little, this Government is consumed with the petty small-mindedness around a series of alleged emails that have yet to be published.

Well, is it not interesting that while the Labour Party decides it is going to deal with those sorts of issues, under its watch over the last 12 months, crime in this country—a serious issue—has risen by just under 7 percent? When will those members spend some time in this Chamber dealing with that issue? When will they spend some time in this Chamber dealing with the fact that under their watch, violent crime has gone up in this country by 26 percent? We never hear anything from the Labour Party about that issue.

Today we heard three snippy little speeches from Labour Party members. Where were they, to rise in this House and speak, when a 95-year-old woman, walking to the shops to buy some milk, was mugged by two youths for $2? We did not see Labour Party members on their feet then—[Interruption] Oh, Judith Tizard chips in. It is good to have the Minister back. Where has she been this week?

In the last year, police have been expected to deal with 6,800 youth offenders through family group conferences. That is what they have budgeted for. Instead they dealt with 11,700 youth offenders. Where were the Labour Party members who got to their feet and talked about that appalling statistic? They were nowhere to be seen—too busy chipping away at what the National Party had or had not been doing. This week Mark Burton finally got off his backside as Minister of Justice and introduced to this House a bill to try to reduce the prison population—not to address crime or the causes of crime, but to try to put to bed the embarrassment that the Prime Minister feels every time she meets with one of her fellow socialist country leaders from around the world.

Phil Goff must be spinning in his grave. He used to proudly greet the news of a rising prison population as proof that Labour’s tough on crime policies were working. Well, Mark Burton has finally decided, after 14 months, to do something legislatively. He is the Minister whom the New Zealand Herald gave two out of 10 for his first 6 months as Minister of Justice. As a result of his initiatives, the length of sentences served by people in New Zealand will reduce by 25 percent.

Well, that is not what the public of New Zealand voted for in 1999 when 92 percent of New Zealanders said they wanted tougher and longer sentences, not shorter and more community-based sentences. That Minister should stand up, take a call, and explain to 92 percent of New Zealanders where the mandate came from for that sort of legislative programme to be progressed. All the time the Department of Corrections lurches from crisis to crisis. The CEO of that department described it as his worst year. The Minister of Corrections disagreed, saying: “I don’t think it’s been a bad year for the department.” Well, he should read the newspapers and talk to Mark Burton about the fact that reducing the prison population is not the answer to reducing crime, and it is not the answer to preventing a 95-year-old woman from being mugged for $2. That does not answer the problem. Those members should not come to this House and lecture this country about what National should or should not be doing. They should get off their backsides and fix the crime problem in New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. My Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was pulled out of the ballot in June of this year, and was set down to be debated today, but I have decided to delay it. I do not think Parliament is quite ready yet to have the rational conversation about medicinal cannabis that is needed. My bill would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act so that doctors, not politicians, will decide whether a person should be prescribed this drug. It is a critical issue for ill New Zealanders that deserves to be treated with the utmost care and consideration. Instead, today, a 2,991 signature petition was tabled asking that Parliament give urgent consideration to changing the law to allow individuals to obtain, possess, and use cannabis for treatment of serious medical conditions when this has been recommended, or endorsed in writing, by the individual’s registered medical practitioner. This petition will go to the Health Committee, enabling members of Parliament to investigate the legal framework options fully.

Cannabis does have proven medicinal properties. Research from the US, Israel, Germany, Britain, Canada, and other countries has proven that it is useful in treating HIV and cancer wasting syndrome, nausea caused by chemotherapy and other pharmaceutical drugs, muscle spasms, neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and chronic pain that simply cannot be relieved by other conventional medicines.

Cannabis is prescribed every day in other countries. In Canada and in 11 states in the US cannabis can be grown for medical use. In Britain, Sativex, a pharmaceutical preparation, is used by doctors on a case-by-case basis. In the Netherlands the equivalent of our Ministry of Health distributes medical grade cannabis through pharmacies. In New South Wales there is a 4-year trial project proposed to allow patients with severe nausea and severe pain to access medicinal cannabis. It is not being provided for the purposes of smoking, I hasten to add for members. It can be, and is being, delivered in forms that are dosage-controlled, effective, and rapid, and which completely avoid the need to smoke the raw material like a cigarette. Smoking of cannabis for medicinal purposes is simply not an issue.

Here in New Zealand there is ample community and medical support for medicinal use. A television poll recently showed that 63 percent of people agreed that it should be available by prescription. The New Zealand Medical Association has said that the benefits and delivery systems for medicinal use should be researched in this country. There is support from organisations like the New Zealand AIDS Foundation and the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and significant pharmacological research is being done in New Zealand at the moment. A doctors’ survey in 2005 found that one in five doctors had patients that use cannabis for medicinal purposes. Thirty-two percent of those doctors surveyed would consider prescribing it if it were legal, and 10 percent had current patients who they believed would benefit from it. Surely this is a medical issue and not a political one.

But evidence, research, community and professional support are not the barriers to amending the law to make prescription for medical use easier. There are hundreds of ill New Zealanders with an absolutely genuine need for this drug who are either, because of the law, criminals and facing jail, or are left in pain and isolation because they are too frightened of the law to use it to relieve their suffering. Patients with a variety of conditions from chronic social anxiety to Nail Patella syndrome are desperate for a legal framework that will allow them to use this drug—desperate for a legal framework that will protect them from both the police and from thieves.

The evidence of effectiveness is overwhelming. The models for a better system are ours for the picking. The only real barrier to enabling an easier and more humane system for prescription cannabis is the prejudice that some people hold against cannabis users. It is this prejudice that means that as a community we deny ill New Zealanders access to a viable, useful medicine. Surely we have a responsibility wherever practicable to relieve the suffering of sick people.

Medicinal cannabis can be provided to patients in a safe, medically supervised, cost-effective way, and prejudice should play no part in its medical application. My bill and the petition tabled today are about taking politicians out of the medication decisions by doctors and, instead, allowing doctors to make medical decisions about the best options for their patients.

I recall my old days at St Bede’s College, the wonderful Catholic school that both Gerry Brownlee and I attended. Not being the best Catholic in the world, I can remember the words of a certain scriptural proverb that goes like this: “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” I am told Dr Brash is a scriptural scholar, so he should read that from the Book of Proverbs. I will not concentrate on Dr Brash in my speech, because, of course, he is a dead man walking—RIP, gone, the body bags are out.

I find it interesting to see which National members have spoken in the debate today. Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, and Simon Power have spoken—all three are leadership contenders. Has Dr Brash spoken? No. Has Mr Key been up there defending his reputation, which he will be forced to do in the coming days? No, but we have had Huey, Dewey, and Louie—the three leadership contenders.

The debate over Mr Hager and his so-called credibility, which Mr Brownlee raised, is immaterial. As Mr Hager has said himself, the people will judge when the book comes out. Two questions remain. Firstly, what has National got to hide and, why will it not lift the injunction; and, secondly, the difference with this book of Mr Hager is that if he is accurate in what he says, and if he has the goods—he got the goods from the famous six National Party sources, to match the famous seven Exclusive Brethren that that mob lined up with, and he has the email evidence leaked by them—then that is evidence. That is the difference between this book and Mr Hager’s differing literary contributions.

The debate now moves to the pretender, Mr Key. If Mr Hager is accurate in what he says, then the tentacles of this conspiracy extend to the Exclusive Brethren. To quote Marilyn Waring on the evidence contained in this book: “I would expect to see much of the evidence set out in the book reported to the Electoral Commission, Parliamentary Services, the police and the Auditor-General.” I go on to quote Mr Hager from an interview this morning. The interviewer asks: “How damning is it on those three people?”—that is, Key, Joyce, and Brash. Mr Hager replies: “Well, the public can judge. I think the book will be here soon.” He quotes John Key as saying he knew nothing about the pamphlets until they arrived and the Brethren said it. Mr Hager continues: “Don Brash continues to say it. I am amazed he is digging his own grave, saying that he only heard about it at the end of August.” Mr Hager adds: “That is simply not true.”

Well, the question for the National caucus is, of course—when it finishes digging the hole and dropping Don Brash into it—whom you replace him with. The problem you have now is that you have a tainted John Key—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—and I ask whether John Key is as good at his rhetoric as he will be at his defence. He will have to get up and defend his integrity and his credibility over this issue. It will not be the slipshod foreign exchange dealer kind of stress that he had when he was trading junk bonds and trading down the New Zealand dollar—oh, no. His feet are firmly against the fire.

I have some questions for Mr Key that I would love him to answer. He could end this debate today, of course, if he did what I challenged him to do and made a personal explanation. If he did that, he could shut it down today. He could come into the House and say that whatever Nicky Hager has is wrong, is out of it, and is not true. These are the questions I have for Mr Key. Is it true, as has been reported to me, that Mr Key has hired one of New Zealand’s top public relations companies, that one of the principals in that company is now working full-time on a rescue package for Mr Key’s reputation, and that they are being paid directly—Mr Key has a few bob; good on him—from his pocket? What is the firm; is it working full-time—will Mr Key front up and tell us that?

Secondly, is it true, as has been reported to me, that Dr Brash and Mr Key have hired a top QC and one of New Zealand’s top four law firms, not the one over there that Mr Finlayson belonged to—Mr Finlayson missed out on his QC, of course—but a real one, to defend him against a potential privileges case? Who is the lawyer, what is the firm, and who is paying? I also ask Mr Key again whether he will stand up in the House today and make a personal explanation—unchallengeable by the House—and deny the lot.

When the validation legislation was going through this House a few weeks ago, Labour made very strong protests, of the nature that it had not known that the spending was illegal and did not know that the pledge card would be included in its election spending, as it had never been in the past. Labour said it should therefore be forgiven. That was the basis of Labour’s defence—that it did not know the spending was illegal, so it was passing retrospective legislation to validate its actions.

Well, today I will table a number of documents at the end of this speech. The first one is a file note written by David Henry, the former Chief Electoral Officer, dated 30 August. The note states: “I telephoned Mike Smith General secretary NZLP re the attached”—the pledge card—“(which is being distributed nationwide to letterboxes … I asked him why it did not carry an authorisation statement. He says that it is being paid for by Parliamentary Services and is therefore not required to have one. He also says it does not call for the party vote. … I said that: 1. who pays for it does not matter 2. it does not need to specifically call for the party vote. so far as the Electoral Act is concerned.” I want members of the House to remember that date—30 August. The election did not occur until 17 September. In other words, 18 days were left to run when the Labour Party was told that, in quite specific terms, by the Chief Electoral Officer.

But David Henry was sensible, and in the next 2 days he put that advice in writing. I will be seeking to table the letter from David Henry dated 2 September, which says those same words again to the Labour Party. It says that the pledge card would be included as election spending and should have carried the authorisation, and that the fact that it was being paid for from Parliamentary Service funds was actually irrelevant, as was the fact that it did not specifically ask for the party vote. The letter goes on: “Would you please … confirm that the advertising is being distributed … advise whether you or your delegate authorised the advertising … state why the advertising carries no statement setting out the name and address of the person” who authorised it. I ask members to listen to the fourth point, because it is a doozy: “put forward any points you wish to make as to why this matter should not be referred to the Police as an illegal practice.” Did members hear that? That is what the Chief Electoral Officer said to Labour on both 30 August and 2 September.

Had Labour wanted to comply with the electoral law, it could have easily cut back on other election spending and kept itself within the limit. But, oh no, it tried to hoodwink the public of New Zealand by saying that it was a bit rich to come back after the election was all over and say the rules had changed. No, the rules had not changed. More important, Labour was given a full, absolute warning by David Henry. I have another letter here from David Henry, dated 12 September, which goes further into the matter. Again, it was written before the actual election day—a full 5 days before—and said to Labour that it could not keep spending at the level it was spending at, because the pledge card was incorporated in its election spending.

It becomes really interesting when we get to the shenanigans over the smokescreen, which I have to say is nothing short of what people have said about the stadium on the waterfront. I refer to a letter written by Trevor Mallard, the Minister for Sport and Recreation. He wrote this in a letter to a person in Tauranga—the House will love this; it is one of my personal favourites: “… Government support of events such as the America’s Cup and the Rugby World Cup are investments not donations. Full analysis, including an independent assessment of the potential economic impact, was undertaken before any decision was taken by Government to support the Rugby World Cup bid.” Members should remember that—a full analysis and independent assessment; an independent economic evaluation. Yet that same Minister tells this House that he does not know what the stadium will cost. He says he has no idea what the stadium will cost or what it will actually blow out to, yet he says there has been a full, independent analysis. He says that robust numbers were compiled.

But here is my personal favourite—I ask the House to listen to this; this is what the Minister Trevor Mallard stated: “We do not need a national stadium as such to host the event. The developments proposed for Eden Park are sufficient for us to be considered a serious bidder.” for the Rugby World Cup.

So there is the Minister, stating in writing that we do not need a national stadium. There is the Minister stating that, in fact, the full economic costings have been done, and none of it is true.

I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a copy of a file note written by the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, dated 30 August.

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

Secondly, I wish to table a letter dated 2 September 2005 to the Labour Party general secretary, Mike Smith, from the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry.

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

Thirdly, I would like to table a letter dated 12 September to the general secretary of the Labour Party from the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry.

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

Fourthly, I would like to table a letter dated 12 August 2005 from the Hon Trevor Mallard, in which he says to a Mr R Jordan of 20 Talbot Place, Tauranga that there is no need for a national stadium, and that the developments at Eden Park are sufficient for the Rugby World Cup.

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

The Hon Clayton Cosgrove observed just moments ago that the afternoon had been a bit of an audition for the future of the National Party leadership. That audition ended when Maurice Williamson took the call. The first three National members who came out to speak were Gerry Brownlee, of course, because he has to; Bill English, because he has another position in mind that he is quite keen on; and Simon Power, who gave a repositioning speech—not seeing the elephant in the room, at all. Simon Power wanted to talk about everything apart from a certain book lying in a warehouse somewhere. He wanted to show that he was the visionary statesman, and a man of substance on law and order issues. But the only thing we can ever remember about him is the following remark: “Wheresoever our troops are called upon, without reservation we will follow other countries.” It will take many years before the memory of that remark will go.

After those three people had spoken, nobody else wanted to speak. Nobody else in the National Party wanted to take a call and defend the leader—apart from Maurice Williamson, of course, who has gone through four or five epochs of time when it comes to the leadership. He is looking forward to Mr Bolger’s grandchild coming in as the National Party leader. The member for Pakuranga will still be there. The next National member who looks as though he will speak is Tau Henare. Mr Henare does not bother too much about what the topic of the day is; as long as he can stand up and let off a bit of steam, that suits Mr Henare’s deep political philosophy.

So that is the National Party line-up today: the deputy leader, who is paid to speak in that regard; Bill English, who wants his old job back; Simon Power, who is trying to fix up a previous mistake; Maurice Williamson, who is kind of eclipsing them all; and Tau Henare, who cannot believe his luck that he is back in here.

Politics is a very interesting place. We have seen the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, out around the place and around the world. We have seen her being able to advance New Zealand’s trade interests at APEC, being able to push the issue of climate change—which the National Party has only just woken up to, in Opposition at least—and being able to see her Government’s policies come through by way of the Supergold card, in partnership with New Zealand First. Those policies are happening internationally and domestically to make a difference, and the Prime Minister is showing what leadership can do to make a difference for ordinary people.

What has been going on in the Opposition leadership while the Government leadership has been busy on behalf of the people? Well, quite a lot. But most of it has been taking place not in Parliament—not on the floor of the House—but in the courtroom. National members have been trying to defend their leader and trying to see whether they can shift political debate. The most interesting thing about what we are seeing at the moment is that this is not an attack by the Labour Party on the National Party; this is an attack on the National Party by the National Party. This is how these people treat each other. They reserve all their venom, all their disloyalty, and all their sense of strategic purpose, not for an attack on Labour, New Zealand First, United Future, or the Greens—oh no; they reserve all their strategic brilliance for undermining and undoing each other.

Of course, Don Brash is a person who will not be in politics for a whole lot longer, so let us not focus on Don Brash too much, other than to mention a remark he made that appears in Nicky Hager’s preface, which he has made available to the media. Nicky Hager states: “Don Brash had a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those whom Brash described as [omitted owing to the injunction].” I want to know from Don Brash how he describes the New Zealand people in his email when he is talking about us, because the court said that it could not be printed, and it is quite clear here that it has been omitted. I want to know what language Don Brash uses when he is casually referring to the New Zealand people when talking to his colleagues. We know that Nicky Hager states that his approach is “deeply cynical”, so why does Don Brash not take a call and tell us how he talks about New Zealanders? I suspect that that will be one of the most embarrassing things for the National Party when the information comes out.

I ask National members this question: how many of them are proud of the injunction taken by Don Brash? How many of them back their leader over the injunction he took last Friday? Not one single hand went up on the Opposition benches. Not one of those members believe that what Don Brash did last week was in the best interests of New Zealand democracy. All of them are sitting on their hands, because they will not back their leader.

But this is not about Don Brash any more. It is much broader than that. It now goes to John Key. John Key, who is the putative leader of the National Party—we know that only because that is what he tells everybody—is lining up for the job, but he will find his credibility under attack in this book. Here I have a photo of Mr Key, the member for Helensville, meeting in his electorate office with two of the strategists for the National Party, who are members of the Exclusive Brethren church. There is nothing wrong with that; one can meet with those kinds of people if one wants to. But when we find out that those people are writing National Party policy and strategy, having an influence on the campaign, and donating $1.2 million in kind to the National Party, it is of concern. And that is not a Labour Party claim. The Exclusive Brethren wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer saying they wanted to spend $1.2 million. The Chief Electoral Officer wrote back to the National Party and asked, as one of four questions posed to it, what it would do about that. National answered the first three questions but could not answer any others.

I think that it is very clear that the stories Labour members have run have no substance. I predicted, correctly, that the election campaign would be dirty, and this is dirt without precedent. These conspiracy theories—all by Helen Clark about poor old Nicky Hager—are an outrage. We have heard more in the House today from Labour member after Labour member, including Clayton Cosgrove. He is the poor fellow who went to St Bede’s. The best 5 years of Clayton’s life at school were spent in the third form. And it is about time that he stopped using paraquat for hairspray.

But let us cut to the chase—stolen property. Let us talk about—[Interruption] Oh, mine is natural. Let us talk about stolen property. Never mind the old fellow from New Zealand First, never mind the former president of New Zealand First—

💬 Hon Member: Did he quit?

He quit, but that is another story. Some years ago a member of this House stole another member’s diary, which is private property. As far as I am concerned, that is private property.

R Doug Woolerton: I remember that.

It is good to hear Doug Woolerton saying that he remembers that. Emails sent and received are private property. I could not give a toss what is in those emails; the point of fact is that somebody stole them and somebody used that stolen material.

As members know, I was brought up in the 1960s in a nice home back in South Auckland, in Ōtara, where the welfare officer was none other than Pita Paraone. He used to say: “Do the right thing. Never steal; never use stolen equipment.” He said that.

But I tell members that that is exactly what the Government is trying to do here. It is saying to the folks of New Zealand that if they steal from the National Party, it is OK. If they use stolen goods from the National Party, it is OK. The “orange roughy” that got up to speak before me was on about using stolen property just for a good laugh—not mentioning the fact that there is nothing in Nicky Hager’s book that actually could not have been published.

Let us not forget that the injunction was about emails. It was not about Nicky Hager’s book, but Nicky Hager wanted the publicity. He wanted the publicity, so he pulled his book. There is no such thing as an injunction against Nicky Hager’s book. Nicky Hager pulled his book. Nicky Hager is nothing more than a media—well, I cannot say the word I was going to say.

💬 Hon Member: Yes, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE Well, a media whore, basically. After the media publicity about his book—and now Clayton Cosgrove is pointing to his head. I do not know why he is pointing to his head, because there is not a hell of a lot in there. He is looking for something, but it is not in there. It is supposed to be in Nicky Hager’s book. As I said, pulling the book is nothing more than a big publicity stunt, backed by none other than Helen Clark.

In the time I have left, let us talk about how, 6 years ago, Winston Peters told the nation that he had evidence of a dog meat trade in China. He was going to write to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff. It never happened. He had all of that information. The question is whether, in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters has contacted the Chinese people about the dastardly trade in St Bernards—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: And poodles.

—and poodles, and all sorts of kurīs or dogs. Where is the letter? Where is the campaign that the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, 6 years ago, that he was going to lead? What is he, in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, doing about it?

For the benefit of the people driving home and listening to their wirelesses, the farmers milking, and the people who were going about their business and listening to that, I say that that speech was made by a man called Tau Henare. Do people remember Tau Henare? Do members remember him? Tau Henare said: “I will never serve in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley.”

💬 Darren Hughes: No, he didn’t say that, did he?

Yes, he did.

💬 Hon Member: And Bolger.

And Bolger. Guess what? Tau Henare served in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley. I think there is a word for that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no.

Yes, there is a word for that, and members are not allowed to say it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is an imputation, and members cannot get around the rules against unparliamentary language by a circumlocution. I suggest the member look at Speaker’s ruling 51/4 from Speaker Barnard in 1937.

As soon as I finish this excellent speech, I will go straight to Speakers’ Rulings and look that up.

There is something extraordinarily smelly within the National Party at the moment. There is a question that has not been answered by any of the National members, notwithstanding the fact that they have wandered all over the place and talked about everything else except the issue that everybody else is talking about. That is what is funny about National members—they always seem to be talking about the things that nobody else is really interested in. We are talking about the issue, and the question is what the National Party has to hide. It is as simple as that. I ask National members what they have to hide.

💬 Hon Members: Nothing.

They have nothing to hide! If there is nothing to hide, why not lift the gagging order? I think that National members have a lot to hide actually, which is why they have asked for the gagging order.

This is what Nicky Hager says about what is in his book: “The story that emerges is an extraordinary case study of unprincipled and anti-democratic politics, repeated cases of deceiving the public, hidden agendas, dodgy election finance issues, and, underlying it all, a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those who Brash described as …”—and that is the bit that is omitted. We want to know why that was omitted. Maybe it referred to the things that Dr Brash talked about in the election campaign. Maybe it was about the good folk of New Zealand.

💬 Moana Mackey: Mainstream.

Maybe it was about mainstream New Zealanders. Maybe Dr Brash is now scared to have mainstream New Zealanders represented in the work by Nicky Hager. I say, though, that if Dr Brash has nothing to hide, then he should lift the injunction.

The problem that National members have is that they are absolutely and totally snookered by this. If they do not lift the injunction, then everybody will think they are up to no good. If they do lift the injunction, then everybody will know they are up to no good. So there is absolutely no question of why they do not want to lift the injunction.

As John Armstrong says: “The overwhelming view of those who have seen the emails is that he”—that is, Dr Brash—“is a goner, and the only question is the extent to which the book damages Mr Key.” So there we are. We all know that Don Brash is history, because we all know that what he says privately is not what he says publicly. The thing about this book and these emails is that they will show, once and for all, all of the things that Labour members know—that what Dr Brash says publicly is not what he tells people privately. People cannot do that in politics, because sooner or later they get caught out—and Don Brash has been caught out.

What about John Key? Well, John Key started saying in an interview that he was not involved with the Brethren. But he suddenly realised, halfway through his sentence, that he should not have been saying that, and that he really should be saying that the Brethren were not involved in his campaign. There is a nice photo of John Key having a discussion in his electorate office with members of the Exclusive Brethren. The real problem for the National Party now is that this book will be bad for John Key. So there goes Don Brash and there goes John Key. All the other pretenders are lining up with glee. There is something smelly in the National Party.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.