General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One thing that we do know is that in fewer than 3 months there will be an election in this country. One thing that we do know is that that election—[Interruption] Listen to those members going again, barracking away. Whenever they are in trouble one can measure it by the volume of noise. This election will be about trust. It will be about a choice between two very different directions and two very different leaders.

New Zealand knows where Helen Clark stands. New Zealand knows that she can represent the country offshore with dignity and prestige. New Zealand knows that she, and she alone, is in charge of the Labour Party. On the other hand, New Zealand does not know where John Key stands, and that is not surprising: John Key does not know where he stands, either. New Zealand does not trust him, and those numbers showing that are getting worse with every poll. New Zealand knows he is not in charge of his own party. New Zealand knows he is confused over policy. How can John Key lead a Government when he cannot lead an Opposition? We see that every day. Members should listen to Mr Key on policy. He went to a Waikato school recently, and he was asked for his view on the giant pylons due to cut through the Waikato. It was a pretty easy question. He said: “That’s getting a bit personal dude.” He was trying to be all 2008 but came out so 1996. He said: “We are worried about security of supply … but my personal view is that they are damn ugly”. There is a clear policy position: he is worried and he thinks the pylons are ugly. So what is his position on the issue?

The cracks are occurring on the opposite side of the House. They began last October, when Tony Ryall had a very strange lapse of behaviour. He issued a policy. He said National would lift the cap on doctors’ fees. What happened? National members said: “The health spokesperson knows nothing about health policy. Shut your mouth, Tony, and disappear until after the election.” Then, of course, poor old mild-mannered and inoffensive Kate Williamson—

Hon Members: Wilkinson!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —Wilkinson, sorry—who would not say boo to a goose, said that National would abolish compulsory KiwiSaver contributions. And she is the industrial relations spokesperson. National members said: “She knows nothing about industrial relations. Shut your mouth, Kate. We don’t want to see you until after the election.” And then we had Shane Ardern, the rural affairs spokesperson. He said National would abolish KiwiSaver contributions for small businesses that provide for rural communities. National members said: “Shane knows nothing about rural affairs. Shut your mouth, Shane, and let’s not see you until after the election.”

Then came the doozy. Bill English, the policy supremo, the man who knows everything in the National Party, said he wanted to sell Kiwibank eventually. He said that John Key did not understand Working for Families. So Bill English, the finance spokesperson, the head of the policy committee, was told that he did not understand finance policy. They did not tell him to shut up; after he apologised they put a big piece of tape over his mouth and said: “Bill, we don’t want to see you until after the election.” The latest is Maurice Williamson. He proposed tolls of $50 a week, which is nothing new; Maurice has been proposing heavy tolling up and down the country, at meeting after meeting, for years. He proposed the privatisation of schools and hospitals. He has been doing that for years, but suddenly, of course, he said it on Agenda, which, as we all know, is the great big trap into which unwary politicians fall. The transport spokesperson was told: “You know nothing about transport. Shut up until after the election!”, so Maurice was put back in the garage.

Well, having spent so long following a small target policy of “me too-ism”, National is suddenly a great big juicy target. New Zealanders, having seen National swallow so many dead rats, are starting to say that they think they can smell a live one. The live rat they are smelling is National Party credibility, National Party trustworthiness, and National Party principles. They do not believe they can trust National. They do not believe now that they can believe what National says. That is the issue that this election will be about. They do not believe National protestations of having no secret agenda, and the more they stop trusting National, the more many of them start to remember that Mr English is one of those who broke the promise on the national superannuation surcharge.

Let us talk about some issues of the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister of New Zealand and her role in this Owen Glenn donation saga. What has become clear is that the one person who is being straight about the donations is Owen Glenn. Members should remember events from earlier in the year. Owen Glenn got a Queen’s honour, and Labour was asked whether he gave it money. Mike Williams said: “No, not since the 2005 election.”, and that was wrong. Owen Glenn told the public the truth, which was that he gave a $100,000 no-interest loan. So Owen Glenn is the one person in this sorry saga who tells it like it is.

What about the other people? Helen Clark was asked whether she knew about the interest-free loan, and she said that, yes, she did know. Then she was asked why she had not told Mike Williams—who had made public statements in January that there was no interest-free loan—and she replied that she had not told him because she was overseas. That is from someone who famously texts people in New Zealand when she is at official functions overseas!

But the story moves on. We remember the events around 20 February, when Owen Glenn said that he gave money to another political party. There was much speculation about which party that might be. He was asked whether he had given money to New Zealand First. He said: “Well, go and ask them.” It turns out that that was what the public relations agent was telling him to say.

The New Zealand Herald of 21 February had a full-blown story about speculation on donations from Owen Glenn to New Zealand First, but what else happened that day? On that day Owen Glenn met the Prime Minister in a private meeting, after opening the Owen G Glenn Building. The Prime Minister expects us to believe that although the newspaper headline that day was whether Owen Glenn had given money to New Zealand First, they never discussed the issue. She expects us to believe that Owen Glenn, the man who tells it like it is, did not say to his good friend Helen Clark—to whom he had given half a million dollars and from whom he had taken a Queen’s honour—“Helen, there is a problem. The problem is that I gave New Zealand First some money and your Minister is out there saying that I did not.” What makes it more likely that he would have said that? In an email to his public relations agent, he said: “Should I keep saying I didn’t give it to NZ First?? When I did?”. He sent that email on the day he met with Helen Clark.

So here is the question of trustworthiness: what did Helen Clark know about the $100,000 donation to Winston Peters? This issue is not about some pair of errant schoolboys, as she treats them, over some disagreement in the playground; this is about a donor and a lump of money at the heart of the formation of this Government—a Government, I might add, that stood in this House for 2 years lecturing everybody else about the influence of big money; a Government that changed, at Helen Clark’s instigation, the Electoral Finance Act so that one person who lives overseas could keep giving money. That person is Owen Glenn.

I have never met Owen Glenn, but my impression is that he is a good man. He is generous, he is a bit naive about politics, he would love to be in photos with the Prime Minister, and he was insulted when Labour used Trevor Mallard to keep him out of those photos. I believe that when Owen Glenn went to the meeting with Helen Clark, he told her that he had given $100,000 to New Zealand First. I believe that Helen Clark has always known this. That is why today she has taken the stance that this issue will have to be resolved in the Privileges Committee, which she knows will have to lift when she dissolves Parliament.

The irony of the deputy leader of the National Party vouching for the word of the largest donor to the Labour Party will not be lost on New Zealanders. The Labour Party has taken an extremely principled approach to this issue. The National Party bothered to ask the Prime Minister today whether she had sought a fresh assurance from the member, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and she confirmed to the House that she had—that she had received that assurance. The Speaker, earlier today, made clear once again the convention that applies to all members of this House—that a member’s word is to be accepted but if there is a disproof of that word, there is a consequence. The Speaker has underlined that there is a proper process for that to be ascertained, and that is called a hearing by the Privileges Committee. All members and all parties that are part of that process are bound by the confidence of that process, but that does not appear to have dawned on the deputy leader of the National Party, who cannot stand the heat in the kitchen. The deputy leader of the National Party has now changed his mind; he thinks the kitchen is a good idea. No, he has not changed: “God lights—I’ve got a John Key policy announcement.” No—yes, he thinks it is too hot. So now he has decided he will go somewhere else and think about it, because he knows that he has breached the confidence of the Privileges Committee process by jumping to a conclusion.

I want to say something different today, which might surprise some members. I like Maurice Williamson. I like the fact that he has ideas.

Hon Members: What?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Quite seriously, I like the fact that he has ideas, and I like the fact that he is not shy to debate them. I might disagree with the ideas, but I like the fact that he will run those flags up the flagpole. Why? I say the public deserves the debate. There is an election coming along, and I say: “Bring it on!”. But I say to bring it on in the good old-fashioned way, to bring it on in terms of the best traditions of Kiwi democracy, which is that that lot opposite will put forward their ideas, and our lot will put forward our ideas, and that lot out there can decide who they like the best. What is not right is when our lot puts up our ideas but that lot does a soft-shoe shuffle to pretend that either they have not got any ideas, or they have but they are not telling. That is not only unethical; it is anti-democratic, and it flies in the face of the highest traditions for which this country stands.

This week we got to see that phenomenon again. We could call it the “CT disease”; Crosby/Textor invented it. National members did not want us to hear the plan to sell Kiwibank, so there was an instant retraction from Bill English. They did not want us to know about plans to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation—that plan had to dribble out through John Key’s private network at Merrill Lynch—and they certainly did not want us to know about lifting the cap on general practitioner fees, so in National’s whole health discussion document they just forgot to mention it. You know, Tony Ryall’s credibility has never ever recovered from that faux pas. Trust in him has gone; trust in National’s health policy has gone, because National did not put in its discussion document its single biggest policy. Can we see a trend here, ladies and gentlemen? Can we see a trend? National forgot to tell us about plans to privatise schools; that just leapt out in Agenda on Sunday. Kate Wilkinson reminded us about plans to get rid of KiwiSaver, and was told to shut up.

The point is that whether or not New Zealanders agree with the policy, they deserve better. They deserve a fair, honest debate. They deserve to have the honour of knowing what National’s policy actually is, so they can decide whether they like it. Let us face it: if at the end of the day the judgment of the public is that they prefer National’s policy—God help them—to ours, then they will make that judgment and we will all live with it. But the point is that they cannot make that decision, because National is not dignifying New Zealanders with the truth. It is not dignifying them with the facts. It is not dignifying them with the policy but it is using the smokescreen of squabbling between Rodney Hide and Winston Peters to try to cloud the real issue, which is a sleepwalk to an election, with National pulling the wool over the eyes of ordinary New Zealanders.

Getting back to Maurice Williamson, I tell the House that three things are wrong with the $50-a-week toll charge. The first is just a simple statement of the obvious: Maurice thinks that $50 is no particular cost, and that shows a desperate lack of understanding of the plight of ordinary Kiwis.

Let me be clear: nothing I am about to say is sub judice. I have the transcript of an interview by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) of Wayne Crapper, one of Simunovich Fisheries’ former senior skippers. Reading from that transcript now, I see that Wayne Crapper claims that his former boss, Peter Simunovich, told him to lie to the special select committee that had been set up to investigate Simunovich Fisheries’ scampi fishing practices. He says: “It was made quite clear to me that I had to lie, otherwise I wouldn’t be doing”—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not have any particular knowledge of, or interest in, the substantive matters at stake here, but what I do have is a very fresh recollection of the Speaker’s ruling that was handed down earlier today, which made quite clear that, under Standing Order 111, that kind of information does, in the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament, pose a risk of prejudice of a matter that is sub judice. The member has just attempted to introduce more information than he introduced yesterday. Mr Assistant Speaker, I ask you to reflect on the fact that if it was too much yesterday, it must logically be too much today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It pays to know something about current cases before the courts in New Zealand. That is a current case I understand to have been brought against TVNZ by Simunovich Fisheries—and for a quantum sum, seeing that it is a company. So it is sub judice. Mr Hide needs to do some homework for a change.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that all members are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted in this House, and all will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. I am informed by Mr Peters that the issue is sub judice, so I have to take his word—I am bound by that—

Gerry Brownlee: No, you don’t. You’ve got to take Rodney’s word, as well. Why do you take one, not the other? You’re supposed to be a fair and impartial chairman.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Brownlee, please, I have not finished. If anything by way of corruption is being alleged, then I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5, and I will quote from it: “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way, but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Like members, I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders, which have been part of our parliamentary practice for more than 100 years. I ask members to recognise that when they address this House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During your ruling you were repeatedly interrupted by Mr Brownlee, who I note has interrupted me three times now in my first sentence. After you warned him, he interrupted you twice again. Can I ask whether you accept that is acceptable behaviour in the House, or whether you are going to require him at least to withdraw and apologise.

I will run the House my way.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me withdraw and apologise for any offence you may have taken at my outburst, but I am somewhat perplexed. We are going through a series of points of order simply because Mr Hide is choosing to read out a transcript from a television show that has been broadcast in New Zealand. Mr Cunliffe was so wide of the mark, and obviously tuned up to be particularly sensitive to these matters today, that it made him look rather silly. I think it would be rather silly if the Chair were to rule that someone cannot read in this House a transcript of a broadcast television programme.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the case is absolutely clear. We have received an indication that the particular transcript is the subject of a defamation action. An attempt by Mr Hide to avoid the defamation laws by repeating in this House allegations that are the subject of an action and—certainly, in the view of counsel for Mr Peters—defamatory is the very thing that the Standing Orders are designed to prevent this House from doing.

Gerry Brownlee: The Standing Orders are extremely clear. Matters that cannot be raised are matters that are prejudicial to a particular person. No one could conclude that from anything Mr Hide has said today. Indeed, Mr Peters has informed the House that the particular court case relates to a company, not to an individual person. Even on that ground, we would say that the Standing Orders make it absolutely clear that the reading of a transcript from a television programme that has been broadcast is surely within the bounds of this Parliament’s Standing Orders. If is not, then we are surely an outfit that is a bit like the three blind mice—and completely deaf and dumb as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The fact is that Mr Brownlee, quite by accident, has put his finger right on the nub of this matter. It is that transcript that is the subject of the defamation case, and that case is alive as we speak. It is the very exact item that forms the nub of the matter on which the defamation case against TVNZ has been brought. I want to say this: there is no way that TVNZ, or Radio New Zealand, or anyone is going to lose inside the court and seek to win outside in public opinion by this most devious and obstructive device—namely, to get a member of Parliament to run their case outside the court that they are not prepared to face inside the court. Those are the facts. [Interruption] The Standing Orders relate to the constitution of this country, I say for that member’s sake, but, of course, he knows nothing about that, being one of the only members to have infringed them.

Hon David Cunliffe: There are two points that arise from Mr Brownlee’s contribution. The first is his confusion that a company cannot be a legal person. Of course it can, and therefore is covered by the sub judice rules, just as any other legal person would be.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 27/1, 27/2, and 28/2. They are no doubt germane to the comprehensive ruling that was handed down by the Speaker earlier today. The first ruling makes clear that as Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges, it must be particularly vigilant in upholding the privileges of the courts. The judgment, therefore, is the Speaker’s, not the member’s, as to whether there is a threat to that. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 makes the point that we are held to a higher standard than the media are, and Speaker’s ruling 28/2 makes the point that the application of the law to a particular case—or the facts of the case—is within the purview of the sub judice rule. That is what is important here. Again, I have no view on the substantive facts of the case, but as a matter of process I observe that a member of Parliament is using parliamentary privilege to elucidate in the public domain matters that are the subject or may be the subject of a matter that is sub judice. Whatever any of us might think, I believe that this House is bound by the comprehensive ruling that Speaker Wilson handed down earlier today. Mr Assistant Speaker, I would ask you to uphold that.

RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I have not alleged any corruption in my speech. I took the precaution of seeking advice before giving this speech—given yesterday’s ruling—to see whether anything I was saying would be sub judice. The advice I received was that it was not. I think I should be allowed to continue my speech.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest of respect, the transcript is to do with an eventual witness before a parliamentary inquiry but, at that time, the subject of a television documentary. It is that which the company has sued on. It is that allegation that the member seeks to repeat now in this House, and it is the nub of the defamation suit by this company. Whatever advice he got, it must have been from a plumber or a carpenter, but it could not have been from a lawyer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I—[Interruption] I crave the members’ indulgence. I refer members to the ruling that was given earlier today. As I have already indicated, the general application of the law may be discussed, but matters that are material to a particular case currently before the courts may not. In this regard, the House sets itself a high standard to protect the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. In relation to a particular case before the courts, there can be no discussion of antecedent circumstances, the nature of the action filed, circumstances surrounding the action—in other words, matters that may arise in evidence—the possible outcome of the case, or the circumstances of the parties to the action. I have made the ruling, and it is for the Speaker alone to decide.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Was the ruling that you have just put the exact ruling that the Speaker gave the House today? None of us have had the time to consider it. If it is, if that is to be a new Speaker’s ruling, then it is a very, very serious step indeed. It would seem to be quite counter to the Speakers’ rulings; indeed, it is counter to even the ruling that Mr Cunliffe relied on moments ago, and, of course, to 27/2, which states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general, but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” Mr Assistant Speaker, if you take the full interpretation of what you have just said to us, it would mean that we are totally gagged on any matters that relate to the law in New Zealand. That has to be an utter absurdity. This is Parliament and we are the place where laws are made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Don’t be ridiculous.

Gerry Brownlee: Mr Peters interjects, as he often does when he has a bit of trouble on his side, and says that I am being ridiculous. Well, I tell him to read the Speaker’s ruling, then read what the Speaker said. I tell you what: at any other time, a parliamentarian with that member’s experience would be defending the right to speak freely.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I want to quote from the ruling that was given earlier today. “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders, and it is the Speaker who determines its application—Speaker’s ruling 29/3. It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. That is clear from Speaker’s ruling 27/2. However, nothing said in the House should prejudice, however slightly, the decision of any court. That point is made in Speaker’s ruling 28/5.” That is as I have been advised.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure you that of the list you read out—of the Speaker’s ruling that you have just read—nothing I have said or am saying contradicts any of it.

Dail Jones: I think there is some confusion here. The sub judice rule applies to every court case before the courts. I think Mr Hide is trying to say that because this court case—and I am saying it in general terms and on a hypothetical basis—does not involve Mr Peters, he therefore can refer to the court case. Well, that does not apply. Every court case in New Zealand is sub judice as far as this Parliament is concerned. Parliament cannot interfere in any court case, whether or not a member of Parliament is involved in it. I think that is where the confusion may be arising on the part of some members. So if it is XYZ against ABC who are not members of this House, we still cannot debate the pros and cons of that particular court case, but we can—

Phil Heatley: Read the Standing Orders.

Dail Jones: I have, and I am trying to explain them to the rather dense member from Whangarei. I am sure you understand the situation, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I would ask you to take that into account and explain it to those members who do not understand the situation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Jones. A number of Speakers’ rulings have been referred to today. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 is quite specific. It states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general, but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” It is quite specific. Mr Hide, I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I can assure Dail Jones that I understand perfectly what he said. I will continue my speech.

Wayne Crapper says he lied to the select committee about not misreporting—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, this transcript is the core of the case brought by Simunovich Fisheries—as I understand it and have read it—against Television New Zealand. Television New Zealand should not be allowed to not front up at court and instead try to run its case outside the court. Mr Dail Jones has outlined why Parliament has respected this sub judice rule—and for centuries, now. It goes to the core of justice in our country. Mr Hide may be unaware of its ramifications or its reasons, but he should not be allowed to go on offending it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Again, I can only refer to the ruling that was given previously. “The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. The rationale behind the rule is important. This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature, above all other institutions, that it should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases. The House applies a more rigorous inhibitory standard on itself than applies to the media in reporting judicial proceedings. That is not anomalous, given the constitutional relationship between the House and the courts. The House and the news media are not in the same situation.” That is McGee on page 192. Mr Hide, all I can say is that if you refer to something that is sub judice, then that is not in order. It is not in order; you cannot refer to that.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have said—I think half a dozen times—that it is not sub judice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Hide, I can only accept the word—will the member please be seated—of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who tells me that the issue is sub judice. I am only the referee; I have no other course of action left.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You had better now explain to the House why you are prepared to take Mr Peters’ word but not Mr Hide’s. Mr Hide has said that it is not sub judice—he has taken advice. Mr Peters stands up and says: “Oh no, sorry, it is sub judice. You have to stop it.” Well, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are the Speaker, and there is an obligation to make a decision here. But to stand up and say that you have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters ahead of the word of Mr Hide is unacceptable. There has to be some reason for it. Is Mr Hide less honest—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee. You have made your point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yesterday in this House I was challenged on the question of whether a case was sub judice. Today I provided the Speaker with both the evidence of the case and the court receipts of its filing. Mr Hide was wrong yesterday. He gets up in the House today and says he has taken advice on the sub judice rule. He did not even know whether the case was current—on the very transcript that is the critical evidence on which this case is being brought! That is why, Mr Assistant Speaker, you should not take Mr Hide’s word, or Mr Brownlee’s—because it is a pathetic repetition of a total lack of understanding of the laws of this country. Mr Finlayson over there knows what I am saying; he is a senior lawyer. Dr Mapp knows, as well, that what they are hearing here is political posturing of the worst sort that has no relationship whatsoever with the law.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have again been informed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice. I have no other course of action left to me. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I—[Interruption] Well, I did actually call before the member; sit down, you buffoon!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Both members will be seated! Mr Brownlee, I heard Mr Mallard call.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The one additional point to your ruling that I think should be made is that in the earlier ruling by the Speaker this case was accepted as being sub judice, after discussions yesterday. Any reversal of that position would be, I think, very, very serious.

Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, you are getting us to a situation where you are saying you are prepared to take the word of a Government Minister over any other member in this House. What evidence do you have to say that Mr Hide is wrong? No one has heard him. There has been just an indication of what he is talking about, and Mr Peters has gone off the deep end, and so have a number of other Government members and Ministers. So what is the Chair basing the decision on? Is it that the member is the Rt Hon Winston Peters and, therefore, above question; is it that he is a Government Minister and, therefore, has to be listened to; or is it that you just do not like Mr Hide and have a fear of what he is going to say?

Dail Jones: The reason we have this rule is to ensure that no miscarriage of justice takes place, because it would be quite easy for any member of Parliament to stand up and reveal matters relating to a court case, the member’s word that it was not part of a court case to be accepted, and the very next day the case could be totally damaged. The case has been mentioned to Mr Hide: Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and others v Television New Zealand Ltd and others. That authority has been given; you have been given that information, as well, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is obvious you have evidence on which to base your decision, and, obviously, you are trying to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Much has been made of the sub judice rule. There is a principle that is equally as powerful and important for this Parliament, and that is the right of free speech. What we are seeing attempted is the use of a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule to disallow any debate around any matter that is across any court case. If that ruling is to hold, what we will do in this Parliament is create a perverse incentive for anybody who has been up to no good, and does not want it debated in Parliament, to simply file very broad proceedings that can potentially withdraw a matter from political debate for 5 or 10 years. These are matters that relate to a time more than 5 years ago. I urge you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to take extreme caution in taking a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule—far broader than any I have heard in my 18 years in this place—and shutting down Rodney Hide from being able to express freely in this Parliament his right of free speech.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am going to give a ruling, Mr Hide. I agree with the member that freedom of speech is important; indeed, it is vital to a functioning legislature. But we also have the sub judice rule, for the reasons outlined. I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. I am guided by the Speaker’s ruling on this, and by the fact that Mr Peters has indicated to the House that the issue is sub judice. His word is his bond. If it is found to be anything else, then there are consequences that follow from that.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure you that nothing I am saying here today bears any relationship to the questions I was asking yesterday, to which the Speaker’s ruling applies. This is new material. I have not mentioned any of the things that you discussed. I have sought advice: the case is not sub judice. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am advised by the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice, and I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. The issue is sub judice.

RODNEY HIDE: Wayne Crapper told Television New Zealand he was—

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

RODNEY HIDE: —instructed by lawyers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. There is a point of order. Mr Hide, your microphone has been turned off. I have advised the member that the issue is sub judice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just witnessed an absolute contempt for your office as Speaker in this House; Mr Hide kept on reading out his speech, regardless. What is happening here, of course, is that this case is sub judice on two levels. It is the nub of my case against TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and others. Mr Hide knows that, the people who have given him this information know that, but, of course, he has not told us who gave him the advice that this issue was not sub judice. He has not told anybody today who told him that what he is about to do is not sub judice. The essence of the matter is that it is the key, core, heart of the case being brought against TVNZ by two complainants, and I am one. So, Mr Assistant Speaker, if he seeks to carry on in this deliberately obtuse way, I think you should sit him down and curtail his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Peters. I just ask Mr Hide to give an assurance that he is talking about a different case from the one that is sub judice. If he cannot give me an assurance on that, then I am going to apply the sub judice rule, and that means the issue cannot be discussed.

RODNEY HIDE: I can give you that assurance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): So the member has given me an assurance that he is talking about a different case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the question needs to be something a little more direct—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. This is a rather serious situation and I ask members to take it seriously.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is not a question of whether the member is referring to a case, but whether he is referring to material that is material to a case. I think that is the key point and should probably have been the question that you asked him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am asking Mr Hide to give me an assurance that he is talking about a different case and not the case that is before the courts at the present stage.

RODNEY HIDE: I am, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be helpful if you were to tell us which case you understand to be the sub judice case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think that is a matter for Mr Peters to—

Gerry Brownlee: No, it is not. You have ruled from the Chair today, Mr Assistant Speaker, that a case is sub judice. We are simply asking you which one. To say that it is whatever one that Mr Peters says leaves the Chair out of control in this House and Mr Peters in control of this House. That is unacceptable. Maybe we should take a short break while you find out, for the assistance of the House, which case is sub judice.

RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order, I say that they all are. That is the point. All cases are sub judice, and I am giving you an assurance that what I am saying today is not sub judice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has said that the issue is sub judice. This House needs to recognise the constitutional arrangements under which we operate. We could not operate otherwise. I am guided by the Speakers’ rulings, the Standing Orders, and the ruling that was given by the Speaker today. The issue is sub judice and cannot be debated in the House, and there the matter ends. We will carry on with the debate.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two things. Firstly, can you explain to the House why Mr Peters’ word is taken ahead of that of another honourable member? That is simple. Secondly, what is it about the Speaker’s ruling that refers to a specific case? The ruling does not; it refers to speaking about matters that are sub judice. Mr Hide, as an honourable member, has said that what he is about to say is not sub judice. So the position that you are in is saying you believe Mr Hide or saying you believe Mr Peters. What are the criteria for deciding that Mr Peters is somehow more elected and more honourable than Mr Hide is?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I understand that the—

Dail Jones: Mr Hide is right and Mr Brownlee is wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please sit down. I understand that Mr Hide has given an assurance that it is a different case—that it is not the defamation case. Is that correct, Mr Hide?

RODNEY HIDE: Yeah. Exactly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not the defamation case.

RODNEY HIDE: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Then I call the honourable member.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have missed the point. As Mr Hide has acknowledged, every case is sub judice. It does not matter who the parties are; every case is sub judice. So if you have asked Mr Hide whether it is the case involving so-and-so, well, that is irrelevant. Every court case in the New Zealand courts is sub judice. So no one in this House can refer to any court case, I say to Mr Brownlee. That is the point. It does not matter whether it was the case yesterday, or another case whatsoever; if it is a case before the courts, Mr Assistant Speaker—and you have read out the rulings—no member of the House can refer to it. No member can refer to any case at all before the courts. So what Mr Hide has to indicate is that the evidence he is using is not involved in a court case. But if Mr Peters can recognise the evidence as being involved in a court case, then you have to accept what Mr Peters has said, because, clearly, his knowledge of the matter exceeds that of Mr Hide. It is simple as that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I again advise the House that, as I understand it, Mr Hide has given me an assurance that it is not the defamation case. If it is not the defamation case, then he can proceed. However, I caution the member that if he raises issues that are sub judice, he cannot do that; otherwise, this House will not function.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you for that, Mr Assistant Speaker. I very much appreciate your ruling.

Mr Crapper says on the tape that he lied to the select committee about not misreporting fish caught, about the dumping of quota species, and about throwing overboard 12 years of his personal diaries. He was told to get rid of the diaries by Simunovich—

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, Mr Hide. The issue has been raised again by Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Hide is now treating you with contempt—and this House, as well. He is reading from key, critical information that was the subject of the complaint and remains the core issue in the complaint before the courts of this country. It is also a key issue in respect of the case that I have brought against TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and a few others as well. The reality is that your having warned him thus far, I think you should tell Mr Hide that he is on his last warning, or the speech will be stopped.

Gerry Brownlee: I think there is only one way that we can sort this out, and that is to find out exactly what everyone is talking about. It would seem to me that if you just rule Mr Hide out, then, given his assurances, you are, in fact, favouring Mr Peters’ view of things ahead of that of Mr Hide and, indeed, a number of other people in the House, and that would be quite unfair. I seek leave for the House to take a 5-minute adjournment to give you time to sort out exactly what the parties here think is being talked about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes, there is objection. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Assistant Speaker, I objected to leave being given because Mr Brownlee has clearly shown, by his demonstration today, that he knows nothing of these cases or the facts around them. What I would like to tell you is this: there was a television documentary on Simunovich Fisheries; the transcript that we are hearing from Mr Hide is regarding the TVNZ documentary—

RODNEY HIDE: It is not.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The evidence that Mr Hide is reading from and repeating in this House is the critical part of that case. It also forms, of course, part of my case, and I was challenged in the House yesterday by these same people, in the same arrogant and outrageous way, to prove that I had a case before the courts of this country. Today I did. I provided the Clerk of the House—and your adviser can confirm this—with the filing date, documents, and the court receipt. Those members have never apologised for the allegation yesterday that I was somehow misleading the House. Those are my bona fides. Perhaps they can show theirs now.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I say again, Mr Assistant Speaker, that perhaps Mr Peters is right. But it would be nice for us all to know whether he is right or wrong, and if we did adjourn for 5 minutes, that could be sorted out. I do not know what the Government is so worried about, and I do not know what Mr Peters is so worried about, but if it is so easy to sort out, if he is going to be exonerated, and if everyone else is going to be proved wrong, why would we not pursue that course of action? So I seek leave again for the House to adjourn.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [Interruption] Order!

Gerry Brownlee: The member has a point of order. Gee; we’re not that much like the Wild West, are we?

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

Dr Wayne Mapp: Mr Assistant Speaker, I draw your attention directly to Standing Order 111. The sub judice rule is not so broad that we can make absolutely no reference whatsoever to cases before the courts. The rule is more limited than that. The reference has to be “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Merely repeating, for instance, a matter that is on the public record—a television documentary, for instance—or referring to a statement of claim, or a statement of defence, or anything of that nature, does not amount to real or prejudicial danger to the case. Mr Assistant Speaker, I refer you to the Standing Order, which states that it has to appear to the Speaker that there is “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Referring to something that has been in a television documentary could not possibly be any level of prejudice. Mr Assistant Speaker, I ask you to apply the ruling as it is written; otherwise, you simply will restrict all reference to any case whatsoever. That cannot be the effect of the sub judice rule.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have to come back again to what Mr Peters has said. He has indicated to the House that the evidence that Mr Hide is talking about is a critical part of the case. I can only take the honourable member’s word for that. That is how this place operates.

Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. Point of order—

RODNEY HIDE: Maybe I can help, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am on my feet. Both of you will be seated, please. I will ask again for an absolute assurance that the issue and the wording the member is using are not sub judice. If they are sub judice, Mr Hide, then you will not be able to continue along that line. It is as simple as that.

RODNEY HIDE: I give my absolute assurance that it is not sub judice.

Dail Jones: How does he know?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I think we have a problem here. I am bound by conventions to accept the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has indicated to the House that the issue that is being discussed is critical to the case. I have no other course of action available to me.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure you that this material forms no part of the case of TVNZ and Simunovich Fisheries, or Winston Peters, and it could not possibly do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I invite the member to continue his speech, but if it is sub judice, Mr Hide, you know what the consequences are.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. Wayne Crapper told TVNZ he was instructed by lawyers acting for Simunovich Fisheries on how to prepare his affidavits and how to answer any questions put to him by the select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We are going round in circles.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, we are not; we are going straight to the nub of the matter: “Wayne Crapper told TVNZ …”. That is what TVNZ repeated in its documentary, and that is what it is being sued for. I am asked by members over there how I know; well, because I have put enough time into it, enough effort into it, and a lot of money into it, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. This is a point of order; this is not a general debate. At the moment a point of order is on the floor. My patience is running out.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. I have acknowledged—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have not finished.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. If you have not finished, then please do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There were affidavits referred to in this matter. These are court documents. Those are the facts. The opening case has been published in the newspapers of this country as to the existence of these matters. To sit here now and claim some ignorance, because you do not know, then take my word for it, is just not acceptable. Worse than that, it is a contempt for this Parliament, and I ask Mr Finlayson, who would know these matters, to give his colleagues some advice.

Gerry Brownlee: There is exactly the problem. Mr Assistant Speaker, Mr Peters is saying that you cannot be moved by the plea from Mr Hide to take his word. But Mr Peters, on the other hand, is making exactly that plea—for you to take his word. It goes back to what I said before: what are the rules and what are the motivations for the Chair—the Speaker of the House—to accept the word of one member over the word of another? That would be a very interesting ruling for us to have. In fact, it would be a disastrous ruling at the same time. The clearest way round this is for the House to take a short adjournment while you are given the opportunity to check the veracity of the claims made by both members. Either that, or we could have someone else take the Chair for a short period of time while another member gave a general debate speech, and you could come back—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have sought some advice.

Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, if you look at Standing Order 48, you will see that it is within your power to “suspend a sitting or adjourn the House if the Speaker thinks it is necessary to do so to maintain order.” I would suggest that we are at a very, very critical point in proceedings, and that course of action might be the best. If that is not acceptable, then it would not be impossible for you to consider having Mr Hide suspend his speech for now, to allow some inquiry to be made about the two positions being advanced by the two particular individuals, and then at some later time, perhaps in 20 minutes when someone else has concluded his or her general debate speech, having Mr Hide resume his speech safe in the knowledge that his right to free speech will not be impeded by the misuse of Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The fact is—and the Clerk of the House can verify this, because they went through the Clerk’s Office—the filings at the court amount to 28 pages. But what was relevant for the Clerk was to file the critical pages of those 28 pages, plus a receipt from the court. That is what I am relying upon as being trusted by this House; it is not just my word, but the fact that I provided the Clerk with the evidence of that and of the date it was filed, which brings it inside the sub judice rule. All we are hearing from other people is their total misapprehension; they do not know what they are talking about and are trying to explain it away.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have sought advice, honourable members, and I will share it with the House. Both cases, if there are two, are sub judice; they are both currently before the courts. The Speaker is in a difficult situation. The Speaker cannot know every case before the courts. The House sets itself a high standard in this respect, and as Speaker I have to have regard to the relationship between the House and the courts. If it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read, then that is not in order. In this regard, I have to take Mr Peters’ word, but I warn the member that there are serious consequences for misleading the Speaker in such a circumstance. The media may discuss the issue, but the House does not. I ask Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general, rather than the specifics of a case. If he cannot, I will have to terminate his speech. I ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me make it quite clear that what I am reading is not sub judice and is not evidence in any case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say again that if it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read, then that is not in order, and it would mean that I would have to terminate the member’s speech. I now ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue.

RODNEY HIDE: And I assure you I am following the rules.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It must be in a general sense.

RODNEY HIDE: He says: “He had no qualms about you lying to the select committee?”. Mr Crapper says: “None whatsoever.” “So let me get it straight. You lied to the select committee about your diaries.” “Yes.” “You’d thrown those overboard.” “Yes.” “Misappropriation.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is outrageous. I recall this documentary very, very well. I recall also the inquiry very, very well, and I know what was filed at the court in both cases. I think it is an absolute outrage that this information, which any reasonable person could understand would be contested by someone if that person was in disagreement with it, because it is so serious, is now being regarded in this frivolous way in this House. Mr Hide’s assurances to you are not worth the air they pass on. Ask yourself which company, if it took its business seriously, would not be suing on this issue, if it objected to the truth of it. That is why this matter is before the court. To have him and others here, despite the fact that the Clerk knows I filed today the critical evidence that was part of yesterday’s challenge by all these members—and when they have nothing left to do today, they do not demur now that I did file the case on time—come up with this sort of argument is, I think, disgraceful, and his speech should be curtailed now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general. He cannot refer to specifics. If he does, I will have to terminate his speech. He cannot refer to specifics; otherwise, his speech will be terminated.

RODNEY HIDE: The transcript continues: “So you’re saying when it came time to give evidence to the select committee, he told you you had to lie to cover up what they had been doing?”. “He told me I had to cover up the answers of what they, and more what I was doing on those affidavits—what I’d been accused of. He wanted to make sure that they were his way, not the truth.” I know that this matter is not before the courts, and I know that it is not part of the evidence; it was an interview conducted in December 2004, well after the time these cases were filed. Indeed, it is an interview that was never broadcast. It is an interview that I have copies of, and I know that Mr Peters is nutty—

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Point of order—

Gerry Brownlee: We’ve got a point of order! You can’t take another one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That was not a point of order; Mr Hide was continuing his speech.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is outrageous. Mr Hide was allowed by me and others to continue his speech, and then he says that he was reading from a transcript that was never published. Could anyone imagine why not? It was because the lawyers behind this transcript knew full well what it meant; they knew that it was subject to a court case at that time, that it would offend the sub judice rule, and that if they published, they would be joined in the action. That is what Mr Hide is trying to do today, subtly, through this House: to get publication; to get the sanctity of the House and parliamentary privilege around this information, which the very people who gave it to him would not themselves publish back then. He does not understand just what he is asking this House to do, and with what contempt he is now treating this institution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, Mr Hide has given the House an assurance; I have accepted it, and I have allowed the member to continue. If Mr Hide has misled the House, there are serious consequences for that action, as well. So I ask Mr Hide to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the court. I need that assurance, because if it is, Mr Hide, and you are addressing this House, then there are serious consequences for that action, as well.

RODNEY HIDE: I can give you that assurance, Mr Assistant Speaker. This has never been injuncted; it has not been any problem whatsoever. [Interruption] Well, Mr Peters can complain, because he is running scared from what is coming out here. We find in this tape that Mr Crapper said he lied to the select committee about—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think I should have to repeat this, but it will be obvious to Mr Finlayson over there, to Wayne Mapp, and to anybody else over there who has any interest in the law of this country and this institution, that the reason why they would not have published that transcript—but they seek to publish it now via this House, and gain the sanctuary of parliamentary privilege, and therefore free themselves to release it—was that it was to do with the central part of a case then current. I know how old this case is; I know how old my case is. The transcript is the key part of the case. But here we are, with Mr Hide saying that because it was never published in 2004, it is not part of the sub judice rule. Frankly, that is just nonsense, as Mr Finlayson, who is the senior lawyer in the National Party, well knows. And I am asking him now to get up and tell his colleagues what the truth of this matter is, on the fact of the sub judice rule as it applies to this case.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I do not wish to comment directly on the matter that Mr Hide and Mr Peters are arguing about at some considerable length, but in the context of what Mr Hide has just said, I would raise with you, Mr Assistant Speaker—and further to what Mr Peters has said—another, quite different point. One cannot bring inside the Standing Orders of the House something that is outside it, by simply quoting what somebody outside the House said. A member cannot call someone a liar inside the House, and a member cannot make something that someone outside the House be within order by quoting it inside the House. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings from the past to that effect, and Mr Hide is trying to do precisely that. That is out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot get round the Standing Orders by quoting from documents.

RODNEY HIDE: I am not trying to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I find myself in a rather difficult situation. I am between Scylla and Charybdis. I have both members giving me assurances about their positions. If it is found that the case is other than the assurances that both members have given to the House, both will face serious consequences arising from those assurances. I again warn Mr Hide that he has to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the courts.

RODNEY HIDE: No, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am not. Happy? We have millions of dollars of—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are in a very difficult position. I think the vast majority of members of the House know that you are in a very difficult position here, ruling on these matters. That kind of sarcastic comment made in front of the House by one of the two protagonists is not actually helpful. I think most people are hoping to get on with these matters and to get on to the next business, which a lot of members are interested in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Hide, your behaviour is coming to the stage where I will have to take action. I caution the member again that if he brings the House into disrepute, and the issue is seen to be sub judice, then I will terminate his speech.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. What went on here, as evidenced in this interview, was that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota was stolen from New Zealanders by the misreporting of catch. We also know that our Parliament was lied to repeatedly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was the very nub of this case. That a company had done what Mr Hide is now alleging was the subject of the documentary, and Crapper was one of the key witnesses in that documentary. Mr Hide has carried on, regardless of what you have told him, a number of times now, and has put right at issue what he was seeking to say from the very start.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Peters. Mr Hide is entitled to address the House in general, and he is doing that at this stage—in general.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you. Our Parliament was lied to repeatedly at the select committee, in a conspiracy to cover up the lying. It is also clear that Mr Winston Peters knew that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota had been stolen—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to sit here and have Mr Hide treat this House with utter contempt, saying anything he likes to try to blackguard me, under the cover of this House. He can walk outside and I will take him on in the court any day, starting right now, but he comes inside here—big, bold man—and makes his stand in front of you, and I am not going to allow him to get away with it. If he wants to say that, he should go outside and join TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and everybody else who is being sued in this case. But he will not get the sanctuary of this House while I am sitting here, when he is repeating comments that are key to the court case in which I am involved and others are involved. Also, he is now accusing me, inside this House, of being in some way corrupt. He is not going to get away with it. I might say this, though: Mr David Carter in court, at every point of this case, said that at no time did he ever seek to impugn the honour and integrity of Winston Peters. Is it not a strange thing what those members are prepared to do in here, but, when they get outside, what they will say when—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All of us know, because we have been dealing with this issue for some time now, that allegations of corruption are not permitted. That is Speaker’s ruling 25/5. I will read it for the member’s benefit: “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way, but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Making allegations of corruption is not in order. The member was running very close to doing so, and he should desist. There is a proper way to raise such matters, and it is not to raise them in the House—not in the House; not allegations of corruption, Mr Hide. I terminated your speech last week because of a similar sort of thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry but the transcript will show that he has already done that. He thinks, stage by stage, by your leniency and your fairness—in my view, it is undue—he will get the story out somehow, and then the media can print it. I know that strategy. It is an underhand strategy—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have a point of order on the floor.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and it is totally despicable, but he seeks to do it. He should now be stopped; otherwise, there will be uproar in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have cautioned the member about corruption. I have also told him that he was running very close to making corruption allegations, and that he should desist. If Mr Peters has taken offence, then I will ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise. Has the member taken offence?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I take offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise.

RODNEY HIDE: I withdraw and apologise.

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

RODNEY HIDE: What is shocking about this case is not actually Mr Peters’ behaviour, because we have come, sadly, to expect no less of him—sadly. He is a man who once stood for something, for some principle and integrity. What is sad about this case is that a Government and a Prime Minister have been dragged into defending this fishy tale, have been dragged into covering up what has gone on here with Simunovich Fisheries and these donations, and Parliament is trying to shut down debate, discussion, and questions, so that, right across New Zealand, anyone who expresses a contrary view to that of Helen Clark and her Government, or anyone who questions, criticises, or wants to debate or discuss the shocking slip in standards in our democracy and in our Government, as evidenced by Mr Winston Peters and his appalling behaviour—

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

RODNEY HIDE: —gets shut down outside this House and inside this House.

Just a few minutes ago Mr Key made a statement about future coalitions in this country. He was, one might say, behaving tough with a wriggle-out clause—behaving tough with a wriggle-out clause. It is not clever, it is not experienced, it is not smart, and it is not wise. Why would he not wait until the Privileges Committee, on which he has so many more members, to decide the evidence on this case? Why would the leader of a party with so-called senior members on this Privileges Committee not wait until it hears the evidence? The answer is that those members know they are going to lose, because they—

Anne Tolley: Because they’ve got integrity.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If they had any integrity, they would not have bought it in the first place. That member would not know a thing about integrity; everybody knows that. Sitting there spouting and having operations to try to look good does not mean that she will ever be fit to be a Minister. We all know that.

Hon Tau Henare: What a wanker!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): No language like that.

Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I ask the member to excuse me; I know there is a point of order in the House. I will have no language like that in this House.

Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member may have the point of order, if it is delivered properly.

Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I thank the member. The point of order is granted.

Hon Tau Henare: Madam Assistant Speaker, you just heard—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I heard bad language.

Hon Tau Henare: And I just apologised for that. Actually, I do not think that is bad language, but I withdrew and apologised.

Madam Assistant Speaker, you just heard in this House an insinuation and accusation that I have never heard in this House before from that member—and he should know better—about one of our members. If you are to let that go and have me up for what I said, which, as I said, I withdrew and apologised for, then you should do something about the insinuation that that member made on Anne Tolley, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Anne Tolley has to take the point of order, not this member.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Has the member taken exception?

Anne Tolley: I have taken exception to that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member, of course, was shouting out at the time that I have no integrity, but I have more in my big toe than she has. I know what pressure John Key is under. I know from whence it comes; I know who these people are. And let me tell members that that is why he is buckling. That is why he is buckling. What he does not understand is that these people are not pro National or pro anybody but themselves. That has been their track record for the last 20 years. But he is responding to them, and it is a very, very silly decision.

What did the New Zealand Herald say on 12 July? It stated that Mr Glenn, in an email that it will not show anybody, claimed that he gave money to New Zealand First. Mr Glenn, in the letter before the committee right now, claims he did not. So we have disposed of the first lie from the New Zealand Herald. Down goes one.

The second thing that the New Zealand Herald claimed was that there was fraud. Mr Glenn, in his letter before the committee right now, stated that there was not. So down goes the second allegation, which is the core of the issue that these people over here were relying upon. Now here comes the third one.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of, and you will know about, the rules around the discussion of matters before the Privileges Committee in this House. Mr Peters cannot continue in this vein.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I thank the member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, I say that John Key did nothing else at question time but just that. He relied upon the letters that the committee—for reasons I do not understand, but I am happy about—has made public: both Mr Glenn’s letter and mine. Therefore, those letters are in the public arena. I am afraid that Mr Brownlee has failed for that reason and by reason of his own leader’s actions at question time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Would Mr Brownlee take his seat, please. It just so happened that I was listening and I asked the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House said that members are allowed to discuss that which has been published, but are not allowed to discuss proceedings in the committee. Would the member please continue.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—another win! Now here comes the third one; the critical one on which the alligators who are out there relied upon Mr Hide to come to this House and, somehow, fight their case for them, because, of course, we all know where this is going in the end.

Let me just say this. When one talks about those issues of personal experience, one needs to know what the travel diary for people and what their schedules might be. One has to know what events are important. One has to know which witnesses are important. I can tell members that I have just had a conversation this afternoon—because I have only had the letter from Mr Glenn for less than 24 hours—that tells me exactly what time this conversation happened, why it happened, whom it happened with, and what Mr Glenn said. Do members know why it is important? Because it relates to a critical piece of information that “Granny Herald”—thank heavens for “Granny Herald”—in its nanny way, actually published. It concerned my entitlement to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this country. It concerned when the issue first blew, in Pusan in South Korea. I was there with two other ministerial colleagues. That is why I now know the dates and the times. I will be telling the select committee—in public—all the details about that, as will Mr Henry. Now, I would rather wait for the select committee to make those facts known, because I think that the select committee is apprised of it, but I would just say this here.

Gerry Brownlee: Story No. 3.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not story No. 3, I say to Mr Brownlee; it is the same story that I told in respect of Mr Bob Jones, who admits now that there was no fraud and that my version was right.

Let us go back to why this started. It started because it is a compliment to New Zealand First. Those people think that they can take us out, because one party stands in their way, and that party is the party with a record of standing up for ordinary New Zealanders, of putting New Zealand first, and of never ever being bought off.

We have just heard version No. 3 from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and we wonder how long it will be before we get version No. 4, as well. The issues around Owen Glenn, Winston Peters, New Zealand First, and the Labour Government are a test of leadership for Helen Clark, and today she has been found wanting. She has been found wanting. This issue is not just about Mr Peters and his behaviour. It goes to the heart of our constitution, to our very democracy, and to the very reason that we come here to pass laws and to represent New Zealanders. Helen Clark has sat in Parliament today, and she has ducked and dived about whom to believe, Winston Peters or Owen Glenn—because, frankly, both of them cannot be right. One of them is absolutely wrong, and Mr Peters’ third version of events today does not sound any better than version one or two.

This afternoon, members of Labour, under Helen Clark’s leadership, have made a mockery of our democracy. We have seen it—an absolute disgrace—as anything to shut down Mr Hide, anything to stop the truth coming out. They have shown us exactly what is important to them. Michael Cullen let go in a little sort of unguarded moment a couple of months ago when he told a television reporter: “It’s all about power; you don’t understand—it’s all about power.” That pretty much sums up Helen Clark’s Labour Government—it is all about power.

Today the National Party is saying that that price is too high, far too high. Integrity has to mean something. It has to be more than words. It has to mean something. Helen Clark has chosen to look the other way while this Parliament and all the MPs in Labour are tarred with the same taint of deceit that they should not have to bear, because they should live up to the vision of a new standard of accountability that she promised New Zealand in 1999. Instead, the new standard of accountability that we have is the lowest standard of accountability, I would say, that this Parliament has ever seen, in all its years. This is the same Minister of Foreign Affairs who is happy to traipse around the Pacific lecturing other countries about democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Yet today we have seen an absolute travesty in the rule of law in this country. We have seen this Parliament held in contempt by the very Government that seeks to govern us, and that is a disgrace—that is a disgrace.

What we know about Mr Glenn is that he donated money to the Labour Party, and good on him for doing so if that is what he wanted to do. It was his money. He donated money to pay for Winston Peters’ fees. He said that too. Yet we have all these different versions of events. And poor old Mr Glenn, who does not want a lot out of the world—he already has a lot of money—wanted to be the consul to Monaco. That is what he wanted. He wanted a bit of credibility and he wanted a gong at the end of his name, and he got that, except he did not get the Monaco job. And what happened when he went to the Auckland University to open the Owen G Glenn Building for the business school? Helen Clark was there. He was there in his cloak—he was a very important man that day—but he got snubbed like no one else has been snubbed.

The person who did the dirty work for Helen Clark was Trevor Mallard—always “Mr Dirty Work” for Helen Clark. He had to go and bully poor old Owen Glenn, who was there as proud as Punch because he had donated over $7 million, and he thought he was right, and he was great. The photo that hit the front page of the New Zealand Herald was of poor old Owen Glenn being bullied by Trevor Mallard—“Mr Bully-boy”. That is what we can say about the treatment that they have meted out to Owen Glenn. And Owen Glenn does not want to get himself into trouble, he wants to tell the truth, and so he has. His letter that was emailed to the Privileges Committee says it all, really. He thought he was helping the Labour Party—the Labour Party and Helen Clark. He thought he was being helpful; and Mr Peters was really kind: he thanked him for it at the Karaka sales. Obviously, Mr Glenn, whom we already know, cares about these things. He said he thanked him, yet Mr Peters—

I call Tariana Turia.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. On 8 November 1918, Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana received a vision to gather signatures for a petition to take to Parliament to convince the Government to make Te Tiriti o Waitangi part of the law of this land. It is a vision that is still waiting to be realised. The mission of Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana was to bring to Parliament the evidence about land confiscation. He went further—as far afield as England, in fact—to seek an audience with King George V to present his petition, which was a petition that contained the names of two-thirds of all Māori. It was a journey I know well, as my own grandfather, father, and two aunts accompanied Rātana to London on his historic trip seeking the commitment of the Crown to honour the Treaty. That same petition was finally laid in this House in 1932, tabled by Sir Eruera Tirikātene, and by then containing 45,000 signatures. It is time for the petition of Rātana to be honoured. It has been delayed for too long.

The petition, petition No. 239, which is archived in the parliamentary papers of 1932, requested that the Treaty of Waitangi should be entered into the statute book in an effort—and listen to this, everybody—to “preserve the ties of brotherhood between Māori and Pākehā for all time”. But, alas, the petition was carried over, year after year. Eventually, in 1945, it was revised into a recommendation to Cabinet that the Treaty of Waitangi should be published, and copies hung in schools and Māori meeting places—a promise unfulfilled, a commitment dishonoured.

As we approach the 90th anniversary celebration of Rātana’s original prophesy, we in the Māori Party are looking forward to the day when Labour—as it has been saying it will do—tables in the House a bill to entrench Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the constitution of New Zealand. So we have been extremely pleased to hear the rumour circulating around Māori networks that Labour will soon be introducing a bill to entrench the Treaty into our constitution. The ratification of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the ideal that has come through the words and actions of generations of Māori leaders. It was written into the Kohimārama covenant, attended by some 200 chiefs in 1860. Indeed, every iwi has its leaders and its legacy bound up in the commitment to enshrining the Treaty in law. We believe the time is right to entrench the Treaty in all legislation so that decision making on matters concerning Māori, and Māori and Crown together, is shared with all. As an example, the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act would be redrafted to ensure that articles 1 and 2 guarantee our mana and rangatiratanga—the ability to exercise power sharing on all issues that affect us as tangata whenua.

It is time to pay homage to Rātana. It is time to front up to the fundamental challenge of our nationhood, to entrench Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We remember the call from Rātana in 1936: “May you never forget your responsibilities to the Māori people, for when you forget this, your Government will fall.” We pledge today that the Māori Party will do all it can to make good on commitments given over the passage of time, to ensure that no stone is left unturned in upholding the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora.

Much has been much made in this House in the last few days about integrity, about honesty, and about being upfront. Well, the people of New Zealand are asking the National Party, which seeks to be the next Government, how upfront its members are being about its policy.

We have had, of course, some examples of the so-called hidden agenda. I think that more and more New Zealanders are seeing that the National Party does, indeed, have a hidden agenda. We saw, of course, Kate Wilkinson’s release that employers would pay less for their contribution to KiwiSaver. She was dragged in, but she said it. We saw Bill English saying that National would sell Kiwibank. Then he tried to clarify that, but never actually denied it. We had Lockwood Smith saying that National would have to swallow some dead fish, but once in Government it would be able to really convince people that these so-called dead fish were ones that it was going to toss out. Finally, of course, there was Maurice Williamson’s release last Sunday morning on public-private partnerships where he talked about tolling, but also talked about introducing public-private partnerships into schools.

I am privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Education. I stand before the country in the election campaign with the proud record of the Labour-led Government’s 9 years in office. Labour has almost doubled education spending. It has increased teachers’ salaries by some 35 percent, and by 43 percent for principals, and it has invested a whopping $5.5 billion extra into education. The electorate knows where Labour stands on education. It is about resourcing education so that we have a quality education service.

But what does National stand for in education? We have not, of course, had any policy releases about the really big questions in education, such as what young people need to learn in their schools in the 21st century, how we address the barriers facing children and young learners who are currently not succeeding in the education system, and how we resource our schools adequately. None of those questions has been addressed. But we have had a few glimpses of National’s hidden agenda. We have had four of them. The first, of course, has related to public-private partnerships, which we have talked about in the House today. As I explained in question time, public-private partnerships have not worked well in the UK, in Australia, in Canada, and in the US. Indeed, the province of Nova Scotia, with its quite conservative Government, has ended all public-private partnerships in education, because it discovered that the education system and the taxpayer were being grossly overcharged by construction firms and those seeking to manage private business in schools.

In Australia the Federal Parliament found in a recent review of private funding in schools that schools were far less transparent in their processes with that private involvement. It has found that the commercial and confidential nature of many business proposals means that the taxpayer and the state and Federal Government do not have a chance to look closely at these proposals, and that there is not the transparency that there is in a fully publicly funded process. In the US, Bush America—which I am sure the National Party would like to take us to—has companies using public-private partnerships in schools as hosts for other business. McDonald’s, for example, provides food in schools and private preschool centres, and so on. In the UK there have been tremendous problems with private companies not finishing projects, and local government and cities having to pick up the cost of private construction going on in schools. That construction has been grossly under-tendered for, so the taxpayer, as well as the school system, has suffered.

We also have another obvious sign of the hidden agenda in education from National. We had Mr Key’s commitment on the Agenda programme that National would double the amount of money that goes into private schools. In other words, we have capped it at $40 million, and Mr Key said National would just about double it, which is another $40 million out of our public school system into the private system, even though only 6 percent of New Zealand students attend private schools. We have had Mr Key and Anne Tolley, National’s education spokesperson, talking about standardised testing. Actually, Madam Assistant Speaker, as you would know as a former school principal, standardised testing has been totally discredited internationally, not least of all in the UK. We have formative assessment in New Zealand. New Zealand has some of the best assessment systems anywhere in the world.

Finally, taking the “free” out of free early childhood education is National’s plan, as well.

I do not intend to waste any time on that Minister, Chris Carter, who is hopeless, as we all know. Rather, I want to educate the Minister of Justice, Annette King, who needs some help. She admitted in question time this afternoon that she did not know the legislative history of the Electoral Finance Act. So I want to talk about aspects of that legislation, which was passed in haste by Labour and its cronies. And why was that? It was passed simply to benefit Labour and hobble its opponents in election year. The legislation was initially the responsibility of Mark Burton, but he was such a sad case that he made a botch of that—and, indeed, of everything else he touched—so he got the sack. The current Minister of Justice is ritually humiliated by Bill English every day in question time. Her reputation has been destroyed to such an extent that I actually have a chance in the Rongotai electorate.

One clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that was the subject of vigorous debate was clause 25C. That was part of the donations regime that was unilaterally put into the bill one day, with no consultation with National members of Parliament. It was interesting to note that during the course of the debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee, Labour MPs would run away during lunchtime, presumably to get some instructions about the wording of the provision. They were most anxious about the definition of “overseas person”—as Mr Auchinvole will confirm. In 2008 we have discovered why those members were so concerned about the definition of “overseas person”. It transpires that this legislation, and particular regime, was passed in order to facilitate the donations of Mr Glenn to the Labour Party.

Mr Glenn is the man who gave $500,000 in donations to Labour’s 2005 election campaign after he met the Prime Minister at a Tourism New Zealand promotional dinner in Sydney on 8 July 2004. Instalments of that massive payment were deposited into Labour’s bank account on the 9th of each month from November 2004 through to March 2005. We also know about the interest-free loan. We know that Mr Glenn was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. We know that he has alleged he was offered the role of Minister of Transport in her Cabinet—and, given that the Minister of Justice is also the Minister of Transport, that may not have been such a dumb idea. We know that Mike Williams also told the media that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005, and that, as a consequence of that statement, Mike Williams offered his resignation.

This Labour Government passed that disgusting legislation in order to advance its own electoral chances in election year. We all know the Electoral Finance Act is riddled with errors. Every day there is a question about the effect of section 5. No one knows what section 5 means. But section 32 is the worst example of legislating to favour the Government at the expense of Opposition parties. It was specifically inserted to facilitate donations from Mr Owen Glenn, and when he was of no further use to the Labour Party he was simply vomited out.

No matter how cynical one becomes in this place, it is impossible to keep up with the cynicism of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s high-sounding rhetoric about waiting for due process is not about natural justice and her passionate concern for that; she knows that the Privileges Committee will probably never get the opportunity to adjudicate on the matter currently before it, because Parliament is shortly to be prorogued. Members should compare that with her very firm treatment of people like the Hon David Parker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the Hon Dover Samuels, and Taito Phillip Field. Members should compare that particularly with the treatment of Mr Parker, who was subsequently reinstated. He had to resign as Attorney-General and resign as Minister of Energy and Minister of Transport on the following day, and he was reinstated. At the very least, the previous member for Tauranga, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, should be required to stand down pending determination of the matters before the Privileges Committee, given the seriousness of them and given the effect on Parliament’s reputation.

As I say, no matter how cynical one becomes in this place, one cannot keep up with the Labour Party. It really is an excrescence, and it really is lower than vermin.

Before I call the next speaker I want to make a comment. Earlier today the deputy leader of the National Party took a point of order about the use of pejorative language in this House. The previous speaker’s speech contained pejorative language, not just in the last sentence, and not just in the comments about the Labour Party, but in the early ones about individuals in the House. I ask that member to reflect on that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood what the member said, and I would expect that any member who used what might have been the four-letter alternative would be withdrawing and apologising. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in this House, especially when it comes from a barrister who thought he would bring a higher standard to this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He is not a member of the Labour Party, but I will withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, would the member withdraw and apologise without the preface, please.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have withdrawn and apologised. How could one do it better?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Normally when members withdraw and apologise, they just withdraw and apologise and make no comment before or after doing so.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.

I really want to say that Maurice Williamson is an honest man. Maurice Williamson is an honest man. Indeed, whoever sneaked into a National Party conference with secret microphones or tape recorders should know that one does not need to do that with Maurice to get an orchestrated litany of truth.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): To those of us who were riveted to the television screens, I have the bad news that we are still on the general debate, which normally ends at about a quarter to five.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Madam Speaker, you said that the bad news was that we were still on the general debate, but the good news is that the National Party’s secret agenda for this country is finally secret no more. As I said in the Waikato Times to my community the other day, I thank Maurice Williamson for his honesty. I thank him for his integrity and for having backbone. I thank him for having the courage of his beliefs. He is not slippery; with Maurice, what we see is what we get. Maurice has given us a wonderful insight into the real agenda of the National Party. We do not need some adventurous souls to sneak into a National Party conference with some microphones or dictation machines or whatever in order to get an orchestrated litany of truth. Maurice went on Agenda on Sunday and said it how it is.

Let us consider the toll road issue. There have been articles in the Waikato Times such as “Nats eye toll to speed expressway”; there was damage control on all of that. Then there was the wonderful headline to the Waikato Times editorial on Tuesday, 26 August: “Road work will take its toll”. The real toll, indeed, has been the integrity of the National Party, which thought it could somehow sneak its way—sneaky, sneaky—into the Beehive. It thought it could somehow go through an election campaign without revealing what it really stood for, and could keep the other 10 or 20 pages of its policy—because it gives the media the one-page release—in the top drawer. It thought somehow it could do nothing, be on some sort of autopilot, and say nothing. It thought it could hear no evil, speak no evil, and sneak into the Beehive.

Fortunately there are people with backbone, such as Maurice Williamson, who is at least prepared to talk politics. An election in a democracy is about an exchange of ideas, a contest of ideas, and I think that is wonderful. In terms of the contest of ideas—

Pansy Wong: Where are the ideas?

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Pansy Wong should answer me that. We talk about freedom of speech, but what is truly chilling is that Maurice Williamson was due to go on Nine to Noon, then the thought control police, the minders, took him off a minute before he was due to go on. Maurice was no more. Then Bill English went into some sort of damage-control mode. It is a bit like someone disappearing off to Siberia. Maurice has suddenly become a non-person. We ask people who Maurice Williamson is and they say blankly: “Who’s he? Never heard of him.”. He has basically disappeared.

Speaking of tolls, I say to the member Sandra Goudie that she is remarkably silent this evening. I challenge her to stand up in the House tonight and tell us her view on the toll for the Kōpū bridge. The good Mayor of the Thames-Coromandel District, Philippa Barriball, would tell her in no uncertain terms what the future for the toll for the Kōpū bridge should be. Will that toll be $6? Will there be a “Dr Wayne Mapp $6 toll” for the Auckland Harbour Bridge? If one lives over the bridge and goes to Thames, or if one goes home for lunch to Ngātea, how much would one pay a week? It would be $60 or $100.

Hon Trevor Mallard: $120.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: It would be $120. Maurice Williamson said there would be some kind of exemption for local people. I ask Sandra Goudie to stand up in this House and tell us which places the exemption card would cover. Would it cover Thames or Ngātea? Would it cover the coast? Would it cover Whitianga or Paeroa? What is the local area? I ask Sandra Goudie to front up.

The Deputy Prime Minister stood up at the start of this general debate today and talked about honesty. I thought that that was a pretty good way to start. We can judge people’s honesty if we look at the pattern of their behaviour over a period of time. Tonight in my speech I would like to look at a couple of people’s patterns of behaviour.

First of all, let us look at the man Owen Glenn. He has had an ongoing financial relationship with the Labour Party. It is quite clear that his pattern of behaviour has been to pay large amounts of money to the Labour Party—$200,000 in 2004, $300,000 in 2005, and $100,000 in 2007. On the other hand, Labour, led by the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has had an ongoing relationship with Owen Glenn of favours. So in November last year Labour made sure at the Justice and Electoral Committee to alter the Electoral Finance Act in order to protect Owen Glenn’s donations under the overseas donations regime. Sometime over the new year, Labour’s president, Mike Williams, talked to the Prime Minister about Owen Glenn’s desire to become Monaco’s honorary consul, and Labour also talked to Owen Glenn at some stage about a position as Minister of Transport in the Labour Cabinet. So we see the patterns of behaviour laid out between the two parties. The relationship between Owen Glenn and the Labour Party and the Prime Minister is one of mutual obligation: “You scratch my back and do something for me, and we will do something for you.”

If we look at the behaviour patterns of the two leading lights in the Labour Party over a similar period of time, we see that the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, told the media categorically in January that Owen Glenn had “not made any donations to Labour since 2005,”. That unequivocal statement was made to the media, but the media did a bit of digging and found the truth. They found that Owen Glenn had in fact given money to the Labour Party; he had made an interest-free loan of $100,000. Let us remember that the $100,000 was for helping to pay back to the taxpayer almost $800,000 that the Labour Party had illegally used as part of its 2005 election campaign. Mike Williams is the very same man who before the election promised the Chief Electoral Officer that Labour would include that expenditure in its campaign funding, but who after the election changed his mind and did not pay it. So we see the clear pattern of behaviour of the president of the Labour Party, Mike Williams, of saying one thing openly in public but of it actually not being quite true. It is a pattern of dishonesty.

Then we come to the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. She said she did not correct Mike Williams’ dishonest statement to the public regarding Owen Glenn’s donation, because she was overseas. That is a bit like the time she did not notice that the car she was in was travelling at 160 kilometres an hour through the countryside, because she was reading, and it is a bit like the time she did not notice she was signing someone else’s picture, because she was too busy. By the end of February this year, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was forced to admit that she did know about Owen Glenn’s $100,000 donation when she was considering the New Year Honours, and that she had spoken with Mike Williams about Owen Glenn’s desire to be Monaco’s honorary consul. So those two leaders’ actions have shown they have little regard for honesty and little regard for the truth. Their actions show that they are not open and honest with the public of New Zealand.

Owen Glenn is the honest person in this relationship with Helen Clark and Mike Williams. He has always told the truth about his donations and the favours he was promised. He has to be believed, because the pattern of his behaviour has been one of complete honesty all this time. How can we not believe that that honest man, when he met Helen Clark—whose party he had funded with $500,000 or more—at the opening of the University of Auckland business school building, to which he had also donated several million dollars, talked to her about the $100,000?

Has it not been an interesting day in the House today? Have we not seen the classic Crosby/Textor diversion plan in the House today? What is that plan? It is to hide the divisions and create a diversion. Have we not seen that rolled out today?

Why did we not hear about the privatisation of our school buildings from National’s education spokesperson? Let me read what Maurice Williamson said about it on Agenda. He said: “… in Victoria there’s a whole raft of schools now being billed as PPPs, they’re still state schools in terms of the teachers … but the entire cost of maintaining the buildings and doing all the facilities management is now farmed off to someone who is much better”—people who are much better than our principals. He said: “… I don’t know very many Principals who are good at taking care of their buildings budget.” Well, I know a lot of school principals who are very good at taking care of their buildings budgets. They care about the facilities in their schools. They want complete control of the facilities in their schools.

Why did we hear none of that from National’s spokesperson on education? Like all the other spokespeople, she has gone to ground on the issues that matter, one of which is the privatisation of our State school system. Let me say that again—the privatisation of our State school system. We do not have to look very far around the world to find out that when these kinds of arrangements are introduced, we go very quickly from privatisation and private investment being encouraged to being required. It is the schools in the East Coast electorate that would miss out under that kind of arrangement.

But I have to say that National Party members were very, very sensitive today. Why would they not be? They are completely in the closet. They are not allowed to say what they truly believe. They are not allowed to tell us their deepest, darkest political philosophies. Why? Because they think the New Zealand public do not like it. They cannot admit to their true beliefs. Voters and the New Zealand public should be very, very concerned about a National Government. We have seen examples of this, such as asset sales. Bill English said that National will sell Kiwibank eventually. Then he went to ground and we heard no more from him. On KiwiSaver, Kate Wilkinson and Shane Ardern both said that the employer contribution for our workers will go. All of a sudden there was a backtrack: “No, we’re not going to do that.” Those members have gone to ground.

John Key told us that Working for Families was communism by stealth. Either he has rapidly changed his opinion of communism, or he is simply trying to lead the electorate to believe that after the election National will keep a programme that we know it despises and cannot wait to get rid of. When Labour announced the interest-free student loans policy, do members know what the National Party members said? They said it was corrupt. They said it was an election bribe and it was corrupt. What has happened since? Apparently now it is National’s policy. Once again, we are meant to believe that this policy will stay under a National Government, should it ever get hold of the Treasury benches.

John Key said that the Kyoto Protocol and climate change was a hoax and that he was suspicious of the whole phenomenon of climate change. Where are we now? We have done another 180-degree turn. Now we are the true believers in climate change. Of course, the National Party has opposed every single meaningful piece of policy that has come into this House to deal with climate change, but we are meant to believe that should National ever win an election, it will uphold New Zealand’s involvement in Kyoto and follow through on the policies that this Government has put in place.

Then there was the most recent example of infrastructure and tolling. Maurice Williamson went on the Agenda programme and said what he believed. We all know that Maurice always says what he believes. He believes that tolling is a good idea. He thinks that $5 per trip is fair. What happened? The party whose members today have been screaming at the Government about free speech because they think they should be allowed to not comply with Standing Orders, unlike the rest of us, would not let Maurice Williamson, National’s spokesperson on this issue, speak on Nine to Noon. He was pulled off that programme, within minutes of doing the interview on Agenda, and replaced by Bill English. This is the party whose members stood up today and purported to be the absolute defenders of free speech. But the fact is they only want to defend the free speech that suits them; as for the rest of it, they want to shut it down. The sad thing about that is most of the speech they want to shut down comes from within their own caucus.

That is a problem, when a caucus is so divided. That is why we have seen the classic Crosby/Textor diversion coming out today in the House. When one has a division, create a diversion—create another issue so that we do not have to talk about the real issues facing New Zealanders. John Key said that he promises to resign if he breaks any of his election promises. Well, we have heard that before.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that that stuff is sub judice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is a frivolous point of order. Sit down.

MOANA MACKEY: John Key says that he will promise to resign if he breaks any of his election promises. Where have we heard that before?

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.