Volume 643 Week 60 - Thursday 8 November 2007 
Volume 643 Week 60 - Thursday 8 November 2007 
[Volume:643;Page:12925] 
Thursday 8 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill and the Human Tissue Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether I could turn the Leader of the House’s attention to item 17 on the Order Paper—an old favourite of mine—the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. I note that this bill was introduced on 12 November 1998. On Monday of next week it will have been 9 years on the Order Paper. So I wonder whether the Government has any plans to advance that bill or is it just one of those bills like so many others that sit there not able to progress because the numbers are not quite right yet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No the Government is not riven with either indecision or divisions on this particular matter. I thank the member for reminding me that this bill was introduced by a National Government. I had actually forgotten that fact. So it is a blue trout rather than a red one. I am advised that the trout are still safely non-commercial and the bill does not need to proceed at this point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to correct the Leader of the House. I think from memory that this particular bill the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill was actually introduced as a member’s bill by the Hon Mark Burton and then taken over as a Government bill by the Labour Government. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am obliged to the member for correcting me and reminding me that that splendid member the Hon Mark Burton is actually responsible for saving the trout—as no doubt the constituents of the Taupo electorate will save him at the next election. 
Questions to Ministers 
Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers 
1. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has she received any reports on the number of New Zealanders reliant on a benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I have. I am advised that the number of New Zealanders reliant on a benefit has continued to reduce. At the end of October there were 261409 working-age people on a benefit—35 percent fewer than when the Labour-led Government was elected. Even more pleasing is the low number of those on an unemployment benefit. The numbers have continued to drop and there are now fewer than 22000 people on that benefit—the lowest number since 1980 and 89 percent lower than in 1999. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the unemployment rate in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes as a matter of fact I have. I am pleased to inform the House that New Zealand currently has the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded of 3.5 percent. For more than 3 years unemployment has been under 4 percent. We are the only OECD country that has sustained such a low level of unemployment. That result is a testament to the continuing success of the Labour-led Government’s economic management and employment policies. That result should be contrasted with the outgoing National Government’s record in 1999 of 6.2 percent. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is it that in the period of so-called record low unemployment almost 130000 people—5 percent of the working-age population—are too sick to work which is a 50 percent increase since 1999 and is yet another record high? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It would pay the member to be a little more robust with the accuracy of her figures. In fact the number of people of working age on a sickness benefit is 1.5 percent of the total population and the number of people of working age on an invalids benefit— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is difficult to hear. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —is 2.5 percent which is a total of only 3.9 percent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We could not hear any part of that answer whatsoever. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will ask the Minister to repeat her answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My answer advised the member who asked the supplementary question to be a little more robust in the accuracy of the information she provides in those questions. The number of people of working age on a sickness benefit is 1.5 percent of the total working-age population and on an invalids benefit it is 2.4 percent. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Government give serious consideration to lifting core benefit levels and linking them to a fixed percentage of the average wage—as already happens with superannuation which is another kind of benefit—now that we have far fewer people on working-age benefits than we did at the end of the 1990s? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member will know we are working on the issue of a core benefit and announcements about that will be made in the first half of next year. The rate will obviously be reconsidered annually as it is currently. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou to the Minister. What response will she make to the Waikato northern South Island te kaunihera Auckland and Wellington branches of the Labour Party which are demanding that the Government urgently consider enhanced income assistance for those on low incomes who are not currently entitled to support under Working for Families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As with any representation from within my own party I would give it very serious consideration. It is not a surprise to me that members of our party are concerned about people who are dependent on benefits and then have a comparatively low level of income. Our party’s policy has always been to support those people into independence as much as possible and the results in terms of the unemployment rate that I announced to the House in answer to the primary question are certainly testament to the success of that policy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other predictions has the Minister seen concerning the unemployment rate? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen a report from 1999 where the Hon Bill English promised that if the country stuck with National’s policies people would enjoy an unemployment rate of 6 percent and said that any promises of an unemployment rate lower than that were unrealistic and “a hoax”. I am pleased that the country chose to reject National’s failed policies in 1999 in favour of the Labour-led Government’s approach to employment. Unlike the National Party we are aspirational about New Zealand’s future and as proven with today’s announcement of a 3.5 percent unemployment rate it shows how little confidence National had and holds for our country. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora no koe Madam Speaker. What response will she make to remit 38 concerning welfare benefits as tabled at the recent Labour Party conference which called for “urgent consideration for enhanced income assistance for family members taking on caregiver roles”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: To the best of my recollection that remit was supported by the Labour Party conference and as a member of that party I am bound by a collective decision. 
Tax Cuts—Structural Surpluses 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement: “if your surplus is structural as has now been conceded then you can start to address the dividend from a tax cut as well.”; if so does that mean tax cuts are only ever possible if there is a structural surplus? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; and unlike those members opposite we have always maintained that tax cuts can and should be delivered when it is fiscally responsible and they should not be funded by borrowing or by cuts in social spending. I note that in the latest  
New Zealand Investor 
 magazine once again Mr English commits himself to increased borrowing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can he confirm the factual accuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement that it was only “in recent weeks” that he advised the Prime Minister that surpluses were structural rather than cyclical? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. If the member cares to look at the Budget 2007 forecasts he will see they show the surpluses coming back into deficit on a cash basis and the operating surpluses dropping. In other words Treasury was not forecasting structural surpluses of the size that it is now likely to be forecasting in December. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he seen any reports opposing the Government’s four tests for tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The problem is that I am not really sure because the National Party has never publicly opposed any of the four tests but it has promised to borrow for tax cuts. It does not care about cutting social services it shows a pathological disregard for the inflation tests and it is fundamentally committed to increasing inequality. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister was advised only in recent weeks that surpluses were structural rather than cyclical why did it take him 8 years to pass on to the Prime Minister a quote from his own Budget Policy Statement of December 2000 which reads: “Projected operating surpluses are structural not just cyclical.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those are the operating surpluses not the surpluses that enable tax cuts to be made. The member is still living in a fantasy world where operating surpluses consisting of retained profits—investments in things like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the like—can be used for tax cuts. That is why he is quite explicit in the  
New Zealand Investor 
 magazine that he will borrow more. That is how he would pay for tax cuts. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that tax cuts can also be funded from expenditure reductions including for example private sector alternative mechanisms or the utilisation of the Crown’s exceptionally strong balance sheet to finance a higher proportion of capital in schools hospitals etc. through intergenerational debt or by asset sales if these actions improve cash flows? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The notion of funding tax cuts from asset sales is about the worst possible idea that one could come up with because of course asset sales then reduce the assets on the balance sheet and remove the income flow for the future from that particular asset. Asset sales if they are ever to be contemplated by a future right-wing Government should be used for the payment down of net debt not used for current operating requirements. The argument that there should be much more long-term debt rests upon a fundamental error—that is long term there are more demands on the Government’s operating requirements not fewer because of course we face an aging population with increased demands in areas such as health. What that actually does is simply borrow from our children to fund our current consumption. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister heard of the maxim that if one’s policy is to rob Peter to pay Paul then one can always guarantee there is a Paul and has he not heard reports of that as the basis of the relationship between the National Party and the Business Roundtable? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot address the question on internal National Party affairs but the other part of the question was in order.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the one thing that it is fair to say in the New Zealand context is that if robbing Peter to pay Paul is a fiscal policy then the Paul usually seems to end up residing offshore. 
Hon Bill English 
: In addition to the Minister’s Budget Policy Statement in December 2000 that operating surpluses are structural not cyclical did he show the Prime Minister a copy of the  
Beehive Bulletin 
 from 2001 which states: “Finance Minister Michael Cullen says the Crown statements show the Government is easily meeting all of its fiscal targets and is running a structural surplus.” or a copy of his Budget speech from 2001 which presumably the Prime Minister heard because she was sitting next to him which states: “Because revenues are trending above spending the structural surplus is rising.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the member does not seem to quite understand is that with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—and of course he laughs about this because he really does understand; he is pretending not to—an operating surplus of about 3 percent or so of GDP has to be maintained if debt levels are not to rise. What is more given the earnings on that Superannuation Fund that 3 percent figure will tend to trend upwards over the next 10 to 15 years not downwards. Only structural surpluses well in excess of that give the room for revenue reductions or further expenditure increases. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on structural opposition to tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well yes I have. When the National Party members voted against tax cuts for families that could be seen as a one-off. When they voted against the 2005 business tax reductions they could try to explain that away. But when they voted against the 2007 cuts to the corporate rate—[ 
Interruption 
]—members have to remember that I have the microphone; they do not—the research and development tax credits and the tax cuts for savers all in one go it became clear that National’s opposition to tax cuts is now structural in nature. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement of last year when the operating surplus was $11.5 billion and his own definition of the surplus was $8.7 billion—both larger than projected this year—in which he said: “anybody who thinks there are large fiscal surpluses to be spent now by means of large tax reductions should be taken out and quietly drowned.”—and is David Cunliffe going first? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No he will carry on running his own show in that respect. The member needs to look at Budget 2006 and Budget 2007. In both years Treasury was forecasting substantial reductions in the surpluses in out-years. It has had it so far wrong over the last 2 years that the cash surpluses have been a total of more than $7 billion above what it forecast. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that in almost every year there has been a structural surplus—and Helen Clark has found that out apparently only in recent weeks—what is now the Minister’s definition of structural surplus; is it one that means “a number that I can tell the Prime Minister so she can give tax cuts in election year”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the Prime Minister made clear in the speech to the Labour Party conference I will be delivering the tax cuts next year as the Minister of Finance. I go back to remind the member of two points. Firstly a structural surplus of at least 3 percent of GDP is required to avoid debt rising as a proportion of GDP. The National Party is clearly committed to increasing debt as a proportion of GDP—that is borrowing from our children to fund current consumption. The second thing is that Treasury has been continously forecasting that growth will fall away and that the operating surpluses will decline. Treasury is now beginning to indicate that it believes there is a shift in the forecast surplus. That shift is not consistent with meeting the Government’s underlying debt targets. 
High Country Tenure Review Process—Threatened Plant Species 
3.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Does he agree that the Government’s South Island high country tenure review process has seen land rich in threatened plant species being privatised? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Tenure review has delivered important gains for conservation public access and diversified use of the high country. But the Government is concerned about how well it protects some important natural values over the long term. That is why in future tenure review will not proceed if highly significant landscape lakeside biodiversity or other values are unlikely to be protected satisfactorily. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that fewer than 10 percent of New Zealand’s wetlands remain and is he confident that the Government will secure enough valley floor tussock lands scrublands and wetlands through the renewed process to support indigenous biodiversity in the long term? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot confirm the member’s figures from the notes that I have but of course I will take him at his word. Already 112 threatened plant species and 104 at-risk plant species have been protected by the return of the South Island high country to full Crown ownership following tenure review. So some good progress has been made but I accept that we can do better and we will. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister guarantee to the House today that if such land is to be taken over by the Department of Conservation it will do a better job of preserving the high country environment than that achieved by the farming communities and families over the last 100 years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that that is the objective. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Is tenure review a voluntary process and does it apply to the Crown lessees or both? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tenure review has always been a voluntary process both for lessees and the Crown. The Crown now intends to exercise its discretion not to participate in tenure review in some cases. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Which of the following is true—is it the Minister’s statement in June that “Tenure review has delivered important gains for … the protection of distinctive and rare ecosystems.” or the conclusion of Landcare Research and Department of Conservation scientists that tenure review has caused “a net increase in the risk of biodiversity loss”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have not seen the second statement previously. From the information that I have been given the first statement is certainly true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister take the view that private ownership can look after the flora and fauna and threatened species of this country or does he take the communist view that all land should be nationalised and therefore the flora the fauna and—in the end—humanity are threatened? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that having a balance between private and public ownership is the proper way of getting proper protection for flora and fauna and that is what is happening as a result of tenure review. I do not support the National Party approach of privatising national parks nor do I support the communist approach that some people might have of the nationalisation of all private land. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the new processes that he alluded to for selecting places with significant biodiversity values when evidence now suggests that Department of Conservation managers regularly override the advice of scientists working in the field as to which sites have significant value and that many sites identified as having significant values do not end up being recommended for protection as a result of that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In acting or answering for the responsible Minister I have not had a briefing on the quality of the Department of Conservation processes and therefore I think it would be inappropriate to answer that question in any detail. 
State Services Commissioner—Inquiry into Environment Ministry Appointment 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Has the State Services Commissioner completed the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not when is the investigation expected to be completed and the report made public? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
: No; soon and shortly afterwards. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why 14 weeks after Dr Prebble commenced his investigation into this matter and said he expected it would take no more than 6 weeks is that report still not released? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The difference between when Dr Prebble said it would take 6-8 weeks and now is that the former State Services Commissioner Mr Don Hunn has been involved. Dr Prebble did not know that at the time he made the 6-week comment. I am advised that that was the case 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes he did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I was advised today that he did not know that at that stage and that that is the reason it has taken longer. We know that former State Services Commissioners are very thorough and take their time. Mr Hunn will produce I am sure a very thorough report because when people prepare these kinds of reports their reputations are at stake. There are some very important issues as to the quality of work done by Dr Prebble and the commission generally and I would prefer to have the answers done properly rather than quickly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain further the explanation he has just given as to why the investigation has taken so very long and can he rule out the suggestion that the length of time indicates a conflict between the report that Mr Hunn has produced and the willingness of Mr Prebble to accept his findings? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As Dr Prebble has not yet received Mr Hunn’s report it could not be the latter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What confidence should the New Zealand public have in Dr Prebble and his report when both he and Mr Logan have previously demonstrated serious lapses of memory when it came to revealing details of their own knowledge and involvement in this matter when the Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie initially investigated all the issues? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The reason Mr Hunn is doing the investigation is that there were questions as to Dr Prebble’s involvement. He will make judgments on that and they will be released. In a similar way Dr Prebble as Mr Logan’s employer will be making judgments and they will be released at the appropriate time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister telling the House that there will be two separate reports and that in any event regardless of what Mr Hunn comes up with Dr Prebble remains part of the jury part of the defence and the judge in this particular case? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As the employer of Mr Logan Dr Prebble is a judge. It is inappropriate for Dr Prebble to make judgments about himself and that is why Mr Hunn is doing a report and it will be released. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think that public servants should be managed out of their jobs because of potential perceived conflicts of interest? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It depends on whether those perceived conflicts of interest can be managed. 
Taxi Industry—Standards 
5.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: What recent reports has he received about efforts to raise standards in the taxi industry? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Land Transport New Zealand has advised me that members of its newly established taxi enforcement unit have taken part in two major police operations in Auckland over the past month which have been greatly welcomed and commended by the New Zealand Taxi Federation. Although it was disappointing that a proportion of the taxis were found to be non-compliant mostly relating to licensing offences it is very pleasing to see that the impact of the new taxi enforcement team and the pressure that is continuing to be exerted are having an effect on non-compliant operators. 
Lesley Soper 
: What other work has been undertaken by the Government to raise standards in the industry? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: This Labour-led Government is committed to regulating the taxi industry fairly and firmly in order to protect people. We have set in place a new legislative framework the majority of which came into force in October. It sets in place new requirements for approved taxi organisations including greater recording and reporting requirements particularly around driver behaviour and tougher area knowledge requirements for taxi drivers in Auckland and Wellington—long overdue. Combined with greater enforcement of standards and increasing support and cooperation from the industry it is having a very positive effect. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Audit Findings 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When did the Ministry of Health first become aware of the findings of the audit of Capital and Coast District Health Board discussed in the House yesterday and what external action if any was subsequently taken by the Minister “running this show” at the time? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the certification process for district health boards is an independent statutory quality assurance process undertaken by the Director-General of Health. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When did the Ministry of Health first become aware of the findings of the audit of the Capital and Coast District Health Board and what action was taken by the Minister in charge at the time? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the Ministry of Health received the final Telarc report on or about 27 September 2007. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What other steps has the Ministry of Health taken in respect of the Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Separately from the certification process the Ministry of Health I am advised has elevated the level of its supervision of the board to intensive monitoring. A number of serious issues have been identified which the ministry is working through with the board. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why is it Government policy to certify public hospitals? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Certification facilitates regular checking of quality standards and processes. It provides an opportunity for external auditors to identify issues and for district health boards to take action. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is so different that the Minister would threaten to sack the Capital and Coast District Health Board when the Government had known about this damning report of failure and neglect at Wellington Hospital for at least 2 months? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have made no specific threats to sack anybody. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain the contradiction in his comments in the House yesterday when he said he was running the show now but also said in one answer that primary accountability rests with the district health board and that it would be inappropriate for him to reach over that layer of governance? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The latter comment refers to the statutory governance protocols and the relationship between the Minister and the ministry. The former comment relates to the difference between the Government and the Opposition. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that the Minister is running the show how long will it take to fix the failures at Wellington Hospital? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No doubt the board and the management are working very closely with clinicians to address the issues that have been raised by the ministry. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Was not this Minister playing amateur dramatics yesterday when he threatened to sack a board that he knows is going out of existence in 3 weeks and how tough is that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I explained to the House yesterday a wide range of options is available to the Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his comment in the House yesterday that he was expecting immediate and comprehensive action on the issues raised at Wellington Hospital and is he aware that this corrective action plan approved by the board in October suggests that it will take 12 months to deal with most of the failures addressed in that report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I expect comprehensive action to start immediately. 
Emission Standards—Imported Vehicles 
7.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: When will she sign off the rule that will impose new emission standards on imported vehicles and when will the rule come into force? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 My colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven has responsibility for signing ordinary land transport rules. However I anticipate that the rule will be signed by the end of the year once the procedural formalities have been completed. These include consideration by the Regulations Review Committee which is currently taking place. Rules come into force no fewer than 28 days after being signed. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there is huge concern about this rule that the regulation will lead to significant increases in car prices resulting in owners holding on to their vehicles far longer and thereby defeating the very objective that the rule and the Government wish to attain? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have seen that there is criticism; there is also support—for example from Perry Kerr from the Motor Industries Association. However what we are saying is almost exactly what we said in 2002 when there was a huge uproar that it would be the end of the used car market. We expect New Zealanders to have the ability to buy safe affordable vehicles. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is the Government moving to impose new emission standards on imported vehicles? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: In 2002 we received the  
Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand 
 report which estimated that 399 New Zealanders die prematurely every year as a result of harmful vehicle emissions. The updated report released in July this year estimated that that number had grown to over 500 New Zealanders dying prematurely every year as a result of harmful vehicle emissions. This Labour-led Government is serious about reversing that trend and improving the quality and length of New Zealanders’ lives by improving the quality of our air and the quality of the vehicles we drive. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that if car prices increase it will affect working people first and foremost and knowing that will she sign the regulation which will effectively say: “Stuff them; let them eat cake!”; is that a reasonable summary of this Government’s attitude to working people? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The major group who are affected by poor vehicle quality through both impact standards and emission standards tend to be lower-income New Zealanders. We are attacking this issue on three levels: by improving fuel; by giving people operations like the 0800 SMOKEY campaign so that people maintain and use vehicles better; and by improving vehicle standards. We are also putting major money into public transport and trying to encourage better urban design so that people live closer to where they work. We do a whole lot of things but I am deeply concerned about the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are suffering from heart disease cancer and bronchial and other problems as a result of the lousy air quality we have mainly because of the commercial diesel fleet but also because of the whole of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that the whole purpose of the regulation-signing process is to remove bureaucratic hurdles and that all regulations signed off by Ministers are meant to be non-controversial and knowing that this regulation is very controversial will she still sign it off regardless? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I pointed out in my answer to the first question that I do not sign the regulations. However that is at present being reviewed. Cabinet has not yet made a decision on the rule. 
Hon Member 
: Who signs it? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Hon Harry Duynhoven signs the rule. The member should have been listening during my first answer. The Regulations Review Committee is at present reviewing it. I do not believe it is controversial to try to improve New Zealanders’ health and lives. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table this advertisement which states: “We will show the price of cars—” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there is any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to put it on the  
Hansard 
 record that I was advised by the Minister of Transport the Hon Annette King that Judith Tizard signed off this rule. So I have to ask who knows what is going on over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Schools—New Entrant Class Sizes 
8.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by the Government’s promise that new entrant classes will be reduced “to ensure that by 2008 there are no more than 15 students in a class.”; if so will this promise be achieved in all schools? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes; by the end of 2008 we will resource all schools with a staffing ratio of 1:15 for year 1 students. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that close to 400 primary schools that have rolls of 176 children or fewer will not have access to the policy of one teacher to 15 students in junior classes because those schools are staffed on a different ratio referred to as the maximum average class size so he cannot guarantee that class sizes will be reduced to ensure all new entrants are in a class of 15 students no matter how often he refers to himself as “a very good salesman” for education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member seems to be confused about how the maximum average class size policy works. In fact she is correct that the 1:15 ratio will not apply to some 350 small schools in New Zealand because they already have a ratio that is often better than 1:15. They already have those numbers. 
Sue Moroney 
: What impact would bulk funding have on the teaching of new entrant classes? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Bulk funding—a failed policy supported by National’s associate education spokesperson Allan Peachey—would encourage schools to employ cheaper less experienced teachers. By contrast the Labour-led Government is getting on with the job of putting more teachers into classrooms. Indeed since 2000 we have put almost 5000 extra teachers into classrooms over and above those required by roll growth. Total investment in education has risen from $5.7 billion in 1999 to $9.6 billion today demonstrating this Government’s commitment to providing the best possible education for New Zealand’s children. 
Katherine Rich 
: Was it a good idea for him to say that he got the education job because “I think a lot of my colleagues think I’m a very good salesman.”; and can he tell the House whether part of being a salesman is pretending that he can deliver the 1:15 ratio in junior classes in 2008 when nearly 35 percent of our primary schools will not be eligible for that ratio when he faces a shortage of over 500 teachers and when even his own officials have confirmed it will not happen until 2009? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: To be a good salesman one has to have a good product to sell and we have a fantastic product. Over 5000 extra teachers are in classrooms education funding has gone up by $4 billion we have introduced 20 hours of free early childhood education we have laptops for every teacher we have given broadband and free software licences to every school we have reduced the number of students leaving school with no qualifications we have introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme we have dramatically increased the funding for industry training we have significantly boosted participation in tertiary education and so it goes on. What a fantastic product that is to sell! 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he accept that when his Government stated that class sizes would be reduced to ensure that in 2008 there would be no more than 15 students in a class parents took that statement to mean exactly what it said; and can he tell the House what he will say to parents next year when they find that their new entrant children are in classes of 20 to 25 students? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member seems to be confused about how the student ratio system works. I can easily arrange a briefing with officials for her but ratios have always been introduced on the basis that schools themselves determine how best to use them. I am going into next year confidently saying that this Government will deliver on its 1:15 ratio for first-year students. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that his officials have advised that in order to meet the shortage of teachers next year “some schools might have to compromise on their quality criteria to employ extra teachers”; and what does he think principals parents and other teachers will think about that? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm that. I can confirm that New Zealand teachers are among the best in the world but we will continue to seek avenues to upskill our teaching profession because we want to keep teachers modern up to date and first-class. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Human Rights Commission 
9.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she accept the Human Rights Commission’s conclusion that the Electoral Finance Bill will have a “chilling effect on the expression of political opinion during an election year.”; if not which part of the Human Rights Commission’s analysis is wrong? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister does not have to answer both parts of a question but that question was on notice. It is an important issue and I would have thought that when a Minister is asked which part of the analysis is wrong the Minister would be expected to address that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. Normally members want a definite clear answer and I think that was given to that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry; I did not express my point well. Yes the Minister gave a clear answer to the first part of the question which was no he did not accept the criticisms by the Human Rights Commission; but the second arm to the question asked if not which part of the analysis does the Minister not agree with? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to add anything to his answer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Just to make the rather obvious remark that there has never been an electoral bill put to an electoral select committee that has not been changed before it passes into law. The whole process of having select committee hearings is in order to make a good bill better. 
Rodney Hide 
: Now that the Minister is running the show will she be recommending any changes to the bill in light of the Human Rights Commission’s trenchant criticisms when the bill returns to the House from the select committee next week especially now that she has been briefed on the lack of any significant changes made at the select committee; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be aware that justice officials are advisers to the committee on this bill as they have been for all such bills; that the submissions have been heard; that members have been considering the submissions; and that because no such bill has ever gone into a select committee and not been changed it is a fair bet that this one will be as well. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree with New Zealand First’s view of the Electoral Finance Bill which is that free speech is being protected not endangered and that huge expensive campaigns by rich third parties do nothing to enhance democracy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I most certainly do. New Zealand is not for sale to large purchasers of election messaging. 
Rodney Hide 
: Supplementary question Madam Speaker— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Rodney Hide—[ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on this many times. 
Rodney Hide 
: Winston sometimes they go for charm and brains over seniority. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Just ask the question Mr Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: I thank you for your judgment Madam Speaker. Does the Minister realise that the bill will fail in its primary purpose of stopping the National Party from putting up its billboards early in the new year because the National Party has already bought and paid for them or will the Government now consider restricting freedom of speech retrospectively? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The minutiae of the Electoral Act are well known to the member and I rather suspect he needs to think through that issue twice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. I will make sure I look less like Rodney next time. Is the Minister aware that the Human Rights Commission has come back with a revised view of the bill that is far less critical and which praises the committee members and their attention to the submitters’ concerns— 
Rodney Hide 
: How would he know? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He would know that because if he is brought abreast of the issues he would know it on a daily basis. Madam Speaker can I just repeat that because— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Is this a matter that is before the committee? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The question is about the Human Rights Commission’s view for goodness’ sake. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The problem the Minister is in is that Mr Hide previously referred to the fact that no significant changes had been made in the select committee. Everybody in this House is aware that significant changes are being made and indeed the Human Rights Commission is supporting those changes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but the bill has not been reported back. This is a matter that is still before the committee. I apologise to the House; I should have picked up on Mr Hide’s question. The member may ask a supplementary question but must make sure that it is within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports official or otherwise or rumours or inferences that maybe the Human Rights Commission now has a different view—but then again one cannot be taking swimming lessons and sartorial lessons and spending one’s time on  
Dancing with the Stars 
 rather than attending the committee to know that? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The rules around privilege of activities in select committees have been strictly kept to in this House for a long long time. If you allow questions of that nature asking a member whether he or she has heard any reports on something that will certainly break down the intent of the Standing Order. That question should be ruled out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. We cannot trifle with this matter. The matter is before the select committee. When it returns to the House is the appropriate time to discuss it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to rephrase the question if that is the difficulty. Why are we all so sensitive about this? I seek to rephrase the question by asking the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated and we will get this cleared. I agree. The question was ruled out but the member is entitled to ask another supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he will find it possible to accept if there is a Human Rights Commission submission on the amendment at the committee that there might be a revised view when he knows about it; and will that be part and parcel of the bill’s passage through the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is an opinion but it is not on what is before the committee. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The formal answer is that the bill is changed by the select committee at the point of deliberation. The informal answer is that there may well be significant changes as a result of the views of the Human Rights Commission. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
10.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does she have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; because it is doing an excellent job providing housing for the most vulnerable people in our society. But there is always room for improvement. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister agree with Housing New Zealand Corporation’s statement on its waiting-list website about the 6500 C and D category applicants that “It is unlikely that we will be able to offer ‘C’ and ‘D’ applicants housing”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes I do. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister have confidence that Housing New Zealand Corporation can adequately address the issue of affordable housing in a timely manner to ensure the Kiwi dream of homeownership remains achievable for all New Zealanders; is so when does she expect policy details to be released? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with affordability issues. That brings us into line with other countries such as the United Kingdom Canada and Australia. However we have introduced targeted support for homeownership including the Welcome Home Loan scheme and KiwiSaver. As far as future activities are concerned we will be piloting a shared equity scheme and we are also considering for the near future a housing affordability bill. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister have plans to further explore the scope for Housing New Zealand Corporation to play a constructive role in addressing the now serious issue of housing unaffordability for first home buyers in New Zealand especially those with young families? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Absolutely; that is a priority for this Labour-led Government. The housing affordability issue is a critical one and we acknowledge that and we will through a lot of creative measures ensure that we address that issue in the near future. 
Phil Heatley 
: When is she going to publicly announce to the 6500 people on the waiting list that they will not be getting a State home? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The system for allocating State houses is done on a priority basis; C and D applicants are not as urgent as A and B applicants. We will get to the C and D applicants probably through a variety of measures other than State housing. 
Sue Moroney 
: What has the Government done to address the housing needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We have turned Housing New Zealand Corporation from a real estate agency which it was under National to a vital social service working across the country to house needy families securely. The corporation since 1999 has implemented multiple initiatives such as the Rural Housing Programme the Healthy Housing project the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy the Housing Innovation Fund income-related rents and the Welcome Home Loan scheme. We will continue to build on that. 
Phil Heatley 
: How come the waiting list was only 8691 in 1998 and Labour has since added almost 7000 homes yet the waiting list has grown to 9955 today? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We have introduced income-related rents which have had a knock-on effect in that respect. But can I also add that in the course of our Government’s tenure we have added about 18 houses a week to the State housing stock which compares in stark contrast with the previous Government’s record where it got rid of about 28 houses a week on average. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the reason the waiting list has grown by about 1500 families in the last 8 years even though Labour has added almost 7000 State homes that there is a growing underclass in New Zealand? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: There are a number of reasons why the waiting list may have grown. Can I say that if there is to be any answer to that it will lie with this Labour-led Government and not any National Government. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why has the waiting list grown by 1500 families in the last 8 years even though Labour has added 7000 State houses to the housing stock? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: With the introduction of income-related rents we have more people queuing up for State houses. That is part of the issue of providing affordable secure housing to the most vulnerable families in our society. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister confirm that the waiting list would be a lot smaller if National had not sold off 13000 houses when it was last in Government? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I repeat what I said a moment ago. The reduction of the State housing stock by some 13000 under the previous Government does seem to average out to about the loss of 28 houses per week. That may have something to do with the figures also. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is she then telling the House today that the reason why the waiting list keeps growing even though she keeps on buying houses is the unrealistic expectations Labour has put out into the community; and is she telling us that she is not even going to publicly tell the 6500 families on the waiting list that they will never ever get a State home? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: If the member wishes to have a briefing on just how State houses are allocated according to need then I would be very happy to provide him with that information. 
Phil Heatley 
: I have the 1998 waiting list of 8600 and I seek leave to table it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I have today’s waiting list of almost 10000 and I seek leave to table that. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Statistics New Zealand—Cost of Accessing Products 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is the Government doing to reduce the cost of accessing Statistics New Zealand products? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 In this year’s Budget the Labour-led Government allocated funding to make a further 250 million pieces of information freely available in an easy-to-access form. So far I am pleased to say $5.4 million worth of data that had previously been user-pays has been accessed for free. We have done this after feedback from business leaders and community groups told us that making such data available at no cost could generate real benefits. We listened and we acted and the results show enthusiasm for the Government’s policy. 
Darien Fenton 
: What types of statistical information are now being made freely available? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: A range of information is being made freely available including local and regional demographic information population projections and household expenditure data. This information which includes Digital Boundaries CDs and StreetLink files is helping businesses to identify the size and characteristics of potential markets and helping community groups plan for the better provision of their social services. The Government is committed to giving information that is collected by Statistics New Zealand back to businesses and communities so that informed decisions can be made based on robust data. 
Early Childhood Services—Licensing Standards 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many complaints has the Ministry of Education received about creches in gyms swimming pools and Sunday schools? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Between January and October this year 18 approaches were made to the ministry seeking information about individual services. Creches at pools gyms and Sunday schools have had to be licensed since 1989. Like all early childhood facilities creches at pools and gyms have to keep children safe. They need to have safe facilities and they need to have adequately qualified police-checked staff to supervise children. 
Paula Bennett 
: How many children can gather in one place under the supervision of an adult before such adults are subject to officials telling them that they have to be fully licensed or close their babysitting service? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This Government is concerned about the welfare of children. The member has on a number of occasions in the past raised the question of what happens at drop-off centres—for example at gyms or swimming pools. We are looking at that situation at the moment to see whether we can get some flexibility in the regulations. But I remind the House again that these regulations have been in place since 1989. The National Government in its 9 years in office did not change them. We are looking at whether we can give some flexibility but ultimately we want children to be in a safe environment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The level of noise is rising again. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a statement from a senior retired official from the Ministry of Education that in administering these regulations from 1989 to 2000 he applied common sense— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was actually quite specific and quite easy. It asked how many children could gather. It was about the regulations. The Minister did not address that at all in his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister addressed it. As the member knows no member can require a specific yes or no answer. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What steps has the Government taken to lower the cost of quality early childhood education for families? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Some very significant steps. The Labour-led Government has introduced the historic visionary successful and popular 20 free hours education policy. Just 4 months since it was launched in July nearly 77000 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres are now benefiting from the free hours. That is tens of thousands of New Zealand families who save up to $4500 a year per child all of whom will lose those savings if Paula Bennett gets her way and ends this popular and successful policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: Under regulation how many children can gather in one place under the supervision of an adult before such adults are subject to officials telling them that they have to be fully licensed or close their babysitting service—how many children?  
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Since 1989 if people who have children left under their supervision are not the parents or licensed caregivers they need a licence. We are working through a process to give us a little bit of flexibility for creches at gyms saunas and other such places that people go to. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Do I understand from that flexibility that the rules for a creche at a gym might not be identical to those for a full-time creche? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Currently they are. We are looking for some flexibility in that. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is it now the law that a Sunday school must register as a fully licensed early childhood education centre or be closed down like the 10 gym creches that have already been closed recently? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That has certainly been the law since 1989. We are reviewing it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is not the difference that National did not then go around instructing bureaucrats to shut down babysitting services and trusted that parents actually knew best; how many more will the Minister close? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What a curious new policy this is from National members: to ignore the law because they think it is bad. Well we actually believe in fixing it up. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You are about to call my colleague for what I think is the final supplementary question. I draw your attention again to the Government’s habit of avoiding direct questions so that the Opposition has to use up supplementary questions to try to get an answer. The Minister has already been asked twice how many children trigger the regulations that enable his bureaucrats to shut down Sunday school creche and gym babysitting centres and he has twice refused to answer that question. Either he does not know which may be the case because he is a new Minister or he just does not want to say that it is three—that might be the case. Certainly it is outside the conventions of the House for him to continue to refuse to answer a direct question until all the supplementary questions are used up. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was avoiding giving a number because I wanted it confirmed. I have just had it confirmed; it is three. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is it not true that Sunday schools are under threat of closure because the Minister is waiting on a review which started in the year 2003 and has been running for 5 years when he could simply apply common sense and use his ministerial discretion to exempt them under the Education Act—section 316(1)(b) for his information? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is curious is it not that that question has come from a member whose Government had the ability to do that for 9 years but did not. We have been working through this complex area of early childhood education and I can assure the member that it will be resolved by next year. 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a first time. 
 Despite some of the breathless claims made by those opposite this is actually quite a simple bill. The legislative framework— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a rort. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —the member should know about those—under which parliamentary parties are currently spending money for parliamentary purposes expires on 31 December this year. This bill extends that expiry date until 30 June 2009. The question before the House is whether the current legislative framework should be extended or allowed to lapse. 
Extending the current framework will ensure certainty and transparency for all parties. If the legislation lapses then we will return to the unclear uncertain situation that followed the report of the Controller and Auditor-General of last year which of course covered only some parts of parliamentary spending and the implications for other parts have continued to remain entirely unclear—particularly those covering the employment of staff travel and other matters. It is also important to note that this legislation relates to the legislative framework in which the rules relating to parliamentary spending are set. The legislation itself does not set out all the rules. The detail of the rules is set out in the determinations and the directions issued by the Speaker under the Civil List Act and the Parliamentary Service Act. I note that the Speaker has recently overseen a substantial piece of work to improve and update the determinations and directions and that the new determinations and directions issued last month have been well received and have even received praise from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
The introduction of this bill marks the culmination of a long process of consultation and negotiation with all parties in the House. This includes consultation with the National Party. In fact the National Party was one of the first parties we engaged with in developing the legislative proposals. We believe that it is very important to try to reach agreement between the two largest parties as well as between the other parties in the House to try to achieve a stable long-term regime to replace the interim regime that lapses on 31 December 2007. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We wouldn’t let you cheat. We won’t agree to cheat. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: But I have never ever been found guilty of contempt of court unlike that member. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Auditor-General say? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Auditor-General said that he did not look at a large part of the National Party’s spending so he could not conclude whether it was inside or outside the rules. 
I hoped therefore to be able to bring to the House this year a piece of legislation that would substantially overhaul the legislative framework and address the range of concerns that exist. However that did not prove to be possible. Until quite recently it appeared that there would be support for legislation to put in place a new set of permanent rules. But in early September this year the Government’s representatives were informed by the National Party’s negotiators that rather than supporting a substantive amendment they would be prepared to support only an extension of the current rules. They have also admitted that these current rules were working well and had not caused difficulty to any party in the House. 
We were faced with two options: either to continue to develop substantive legislation in the knowledge that we might have sufficient support to enact it but with a slim majority or to agree with the proposal from the National Party to legislate to extend the current interim framework. 
Hon Bill English 
: What a load of rubbish. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I emphasise that that was the National Party’s proposal. The Government took the view that it was more appropriate to seek compromise and developed legislation that could be supported by a clear majority of the members of Parliament. We were then told by National that its members were not prepared to support what was in essence their proposal. Indeed Mr Brownlee indicated in this House on Tuesday that “National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period.” for the Electoral Finance Bill so that the National caucus could spend its vast treasure chest in the election period of say just 3 months. That is what it was all about. The truth is that National decided that the temptation to play politics was too strong and they admitted as much in front of the representatives of the other parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about fair electoral law rather than cheating in elections? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member who committed contempt of court hates any kind of referee in the place. He is the person who can least talk about those kinds of issues. Mr Brownlee can try to suggest that National— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just cheating on electoral law. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well how many people has that member cheated on in his life? Mr Brownlee can try to suggest— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that his interjections are just too much. He is doing constant barracking. I just ask him to desist. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Brownlee can try to suggest that National would have supported the extension with certain conditions but that is not the reality. National did not come back to the Government saying it would support an extension to a different date. It did not seek to negotiate; it simply rejected the proposal. Other parties luckily have been more interested in trying to achieve a sound and sensible position. 
This House will still have to come back to permanent long-term rules in 2009. The inability to resist the temptation to play politics by National also highlights the need to extend the framework to 2009. The closer we come to an election the less likely it is that common sense and good faith will allow parties to reach common ground on an issue of this sort. “Common sense” are words that I doubt Dr Smith can read let alone understand. Given the outcome this year we simply must extend the current rules for long enough to allow serious consideration to take place outside the heat of an election campaign. Being an appropriation bill of course the bill does not stand referred to a select committee but is simply set down after the first reading has passed for second reading. 
Despite the fact that National is complaining about this legislation in this bill it received the largest amount of Parliamentary Service funding of any party. It stands to gain the most from it. It will protest and pontificate and attempt to seize the high moral ground but will then happily spend the money to take on campaign staff on polling and on media management as it did in 2005—and the Auditor-General never investigated that aspect of the National Party’s spending in 2005. We know National is happy to spend the money because this flyer shows what the party is spending it on in the current year: Parliamentary Service spending by the National Party about what National’s policies are. Which bit of this does National not understand is a legitimate use of Parliamentary Service’s funding? This bill simply continues the rules under which this has been issued. National seems to be believe— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You passed the law! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The point about the high moral ground is that if one thinks something is wrong one does not do it. The National Party does not seem to understand that. 
The fact is that in 2005 that party spent money out of the Parliamentary Service vote on staff who were engaged in election activity. The National Party has never denied that fact and the Auditor-General never looked into that fact and indeed declined to look into that fact. National got away with it and now pretends to take the high moral ground. The high moral ground that National occupies is about as good as that which the Anglo-Saxons occupied in 1066 in that respect. The arrows are descending from the sky on to those members at the present time in that particular respect. The fact is that National will spend this money in 2008 and it is legitimate. 
National argues that politicians should spend election year not explaining what the policies of their parties are and that somehow or other politics stops during election year and politics is all right in any other year in the electoral cycle. Well that is stupid and we will now hear from Mr English all that fake rage he can summon up and all that enormous principle that he finds so convincing. But he needs to explain why this card I am holding went out this year to hundreds and thousands of households and was paid for out of the Parliamentary Service budget. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it’s lawful. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ah because it is lawful! Ha! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 What is at issue with the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill and its companion the Electoral Finance Bill is that there will be one rule for politicians and one rule for everybody else. Three million adults out there in New Zealand are under the mistaken belief that they have at least an equal role in this democracy as the people in here do. Well when this bill passes and when its companion the Electoral Finance Bill passes they will not: there will be one rule for the politicians and one rule for the public. 
Let me summarise those rules. The politicians will be able to do almost anything when it comes to political advertising; the public will be able to do almost nothing. The politicians will be able to do almost everything and the public will be able to do almost nothing. When it comes to the politicians and money that is spent on election campaigns there will be a lot more for the politicians and there will be a lot less for the public and the citizens. Whose opinion will fill election year? It is the opinion of the people with a lot more money who can advertise almost anything. And who will that be? That will be the politicians. Whose opinions will be crowded out in election year? Who will be allowed to say almost nothing and can spend a lot less money? Any private citizen or organisation in New Zealand that mistakenly believes it is their role to influence how people vote. 
That is what is at stake here. This bill that is being passed gives a broad definition of what politicians can spend their money on—including National as well as Labour and as well as all the small parties—at the same time as we have just had big increases in our funding. 
What happens if a person is the candidate who decides he or she wants to contribute to public life and politics in New Zealand and he or she stands in an electorate? That person will have the amount of money he or she can spend in 3 months restricted to him or her for 11 months at $20000. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s the same since 1996. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is the same since 1996 but it used to be restricted for a 3-month period and now that restriction applies for 11 months. That is all the candidate can spend. That is not enough money to get one’s name recognition up. The incumbent will have his or her parliamentary budget of $60000 plus his or her share of the much larger leader’s budget to spend and the Labour Party says that is fairer than it was before! 
 Let us just go back and remind ourselves why we have this bill. We have this bill because the Labour Party issued a pledge card that the Auditor-General said it should not have issued. The Chief Electoral Office told it not to. I want to take members through the history because I think this bill needs to be debated in the context of our understanding of Labour’s reckless disregard for electoral law and for the consequences of this electoral law and in the context of our understanding of the way that Labour ignored the officers of the electoral law in the 2005 election. 
What is the point of passing this law if Labour plans to break it in the same calculated way it did last time? Why do I say that? Let me take members briefly through the events before 2005. All parties were told by the Auditor-General to be careful—they were all told. On 30 August 2005 the Chief Electoral Officer rang the Labour Party members and told them that he was worried about the pledge card. The Labour Party members wrote back and said: “No we think the pledge card is OK.” The Chief Electoral Officer wrote to them again and Labour members wrote back with a much longer opinion—and listen to this—appealing to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and freedom of expression exactly the measures that the Human Rights Commission has said Labour will trample all over with this legislation. But here is the nasty bit. Three days before the last election the Labour Party members said: “Yes we agree. The pledge card is electioneering and we will count it in our election expenses.” They said that. I believe they said it to stop the Chief Electoral Officer going public. They said: “It is electioneering and we will count it.” Three days after the election they wrote back and said: “Oh we withdraw our offer.” How can this Parliament deal with that kind of calculated deceit against the law of the land and against the citizens of New Zealand? 
That is what this legislation is doing. Dr Cullen can go on and on. All his speech shows is that the Labour members think they are the ones who were wronged in all of this—that they are the ones who have been picked on and they are the ones who have to pass this law. This legislation is not needed. It never was. There were rules there the Auditor-General applied them and people got caught out. We never needed this legislation. It is here today only because Labour members cannot accept they have done something wrong. That is the evil in this debate. Labour members cannot accept they did something wrong even though they paid the money for the pledge card back. I ask Dr Cullen: if the pledge card was not the wrong thing to do why did Labour pay the $800000 back? The only reason Labour was not convicted of corrupt practice was because the police read the wrong legislation. The police could not even figure out which piece of legislation to use to convict Labour of breaking the electoral expenses ceiling. 
This piece of legislation is a disgrace. It is about handing to the politicians a lot more taxpayers’ money. It is about relaxing the rules compared with what applies to the citizens of New Zealand so that the politicians can spend taxpayers’ money pushing their own opinions while private citizens and organisations will be prevented from spending their money on pushing their opinions. In fact Labour has thrown out a practical fair and balanced system. The system balanced the interests of the parties and it balanced the interests of the public and the politicians. Now the politicians are taking over. 
The other thing that is invidious about this legislation is that the public have always opposed State funding of political parties. They demonstrated that again earlier this year. They are against State funding of political parties. So what do Labour members do? Purely in their own partisan interest they say: “Well if we can’t get State funding upfront we’ll get it through the back door. We’ll make one law for private citizens to heavily regulate their ability to articulate views in election year we’ll push their amount of money down we will loosen up the rules for politicians and we’ll pump more money through that side.” This is a deeply cynical self-serving partisan exercise from a party that just will not accept the wrong. Labour does not understand anymore the morality of the rule of law. 
I have no confidence at all that Labour members will obey even this self-serving law they are passing. Last time the documentary evidence was that they deliberately broke the law despite the Chief Electoral Officer telling them they were doing so. They deliberately broke the law. They owned up 3 days before the election then did a U-turn 3 days later. Now they are still fighting the argument. That is how Labour is getting out of touch with the public. 
We will defend the right of the public to take at least as big a role as the politicians in the election and in our democracy. We will keep attacking the Labour Party which is using all the weight and the tools of Government to change the law to get its own partisan interests better funded and better protected. Labour is trying to stop anyone else from criticising it contesting it or throwing it out of office. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Nobody does fake outrage better than Bill English Tony Ryall and Nick Smith. It is no wonder that we have just had a contribution from the deputy leader of the National Party and that we are shortly to hear from Dr Nick Smith the former deputy leader of the National Party. When Bill English campaigned around New Zealand under his slogan of “one standard of citizenship” in the 2002 campaign who had to pay for the majority of National’s campaign when the corporate donors the big boys who normally support them walked away because his leadership was so hopeless? The Parliamentary Service Commission funded most of National’s campaign that year and National members know it. Bill English did not refer to that at all because when it suited him he was quite happy with that. 
When the foreshore and seabed debate was on when Bill English was still the National leader he was quite happy to have billboards around New Zealand saying “No deals” with his photo a photo of the beach and a big crest of the House of Representatives as he struggled and tried to save his failing leadership campaign against Dr Don Brash. So in a general election campaign Bill English has been prepared to use Parliamentary Service money on a campaign against Don Brash to try to keep his job as leader. [ 
Interruption 
] He says “absolutely”. When the Exclusive Brethren church turned up and said it would secretly funnel National some money to try to help its campaign in 2005 all of sudden high moral principle came up but as Moana Mackey says National did not even attribute that money. 
Bill English was saying in the debate this afternoon that there should be transparency in all of this and that it should be upfront and above board. Mr English should tell us why National did not include the Exclusive Brethren contribution to its campaign in 2005. The reason is that that contribution would have put National over the top. That is exactly the reason that National did not include it so there is no credibility in terms of the outrage. 
We have to deal with what is practical in terms of this bill. As the Leader of the House said despite all the hype and the hot air the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is actually very simple. What I want to do this afternoon is dispel some of the myths that have been pedalled about by members opposite. The first is around electioneering. This bill will not allow parties to use parliamentary funding to pay for electioneering material. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: We know about that member and consistency. Nick Smith cannot put out a pamphlet that says “Tick Nick” and have that funded by Parliamentary Service. That will not be allowed to happen; this bill does not allow it to happen. If the member does not know that then he shows that he has not read the bill before making a contribution. 
Clause 3 makes it quite clear that funding cannot be used for communication services that include electioneering. Those who try to claim that this bill will provide for electioneering are trying to deliberately mislead the public in that regard. This bill continues the clear legislative prohibition on using parliamentary funds for the purposes of electioneering. This clear prohibition did not exist—and this is an important point—until it was legislated for by the majority of Parliament last year. So it provides for clear and transparent rules by which all parties have to abide. 
The second myth that needs to be dispelled is that this bill is part of some grand plan—as we heard from Mr English—to allow MPs to spend money when others cannot. This bill does not allow MPs to spend money on campaigning for votes when others cannot. It provides rules under which MPs can carry out their obligations to their constituents and to communicate with them. Perhaps that is an obligation that the National Party is not taking seriously but the parties that support this bill do take that seriously and that is why Mr Brownlee is not correct when he continues to pedal the line we have heard from him—that the Electoral Finance Bill has changed rules around accounting for MPs’ election expenses. It is not correct and he does not know what is in the current Electoral Act. 
The Electoral Act was passed in 1993 when the speaker we have just heard from and the one to come next were National Government members. That Act provides quite clearly that activity undertaken in a member’s capacity as a member of Parliament does not count towards election spending providing it does not seek to solicit votes. Nothing in the Electoral Finance Bill or indeed in this bill changes that. But what the National Party seems to be suggesting is that MPs should be prevented from communicating with their constituents. That is something that the majority of parties in this House simply cannot support. 
The other myth that needs dispelling is that this bill has somehow been rushed through the House. This bill is following the normal legislative process for a bill of this type. This bill relates to appropriations and as such it has to meet a test for such bills otherwise it would not have been permitted on to the Order Paper in this form. It will proceed through the normal deliberative process for appropriation bills. It is the National Party that seems determined to play games with the proper legislative process on this bill. I would be shocked if the shadow Leader of the House really believed his mock outrage about this. He has been in this House long enough to understand the legislative process but I am worried that some of his backbench colleagues might actually believe Gerry Brownlee’s crocodile tears in this regard. There are no short cuts with this bill. It is not being rushed through under urgency and we are not bypassing scrutiny. We are following the normal legislative process. 
Another myth that Mr Brownlee has insisted on propagating is the idea that this bill somehow allows the Labour Party to use Government departments and their funding to promote the interests of the Labour Party. Again this is simply not true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It does. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The fact that Nick Smith says it does reinforces the point that it is simply not true. This bill relates to spending for parliamentary purposes for which we gave a legislative definition last year that Dr Nick Smith voted against. Mr Brownlee seeks to confuse two quite separate issues and we heard him doing it again on the radio on Tuesday. Nothing in this bill relates to spending by the Government of New Zealand; it relates only to spending by parliamentary parties. And let us be clear: the party that will benefit the most from funding for parliamentary parties is the National Party. It received the largest slice of taxpayers’ money for parliamentary party purposes. 
Finally I would like to mention the whole range of myths— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about ministerial budgets? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: One cannot solicit votes from ministerial budgets either. The member has been here for 17 years! The bill we are discussing at the moment is not about the electoral finance regime. The bill is not about Labour’s pledge cards from the last election or indeed National’s pledge pamphlets which it put about at the last election as well. The bill is not about whether money that has already been repaid should have been. That matter is settled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did you repay it? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Here is Mr English saying it is terrible that the Labour Party repaid some money. The National Party had to repay money as well. For Mr English the principle is the size of the amount that had to be paid back not whether the Auditor-General found a technical breach and ruled that money had to be paid back. That finding has been honoured by the parties concerned. 
This bill is certainly not about whether Mr English pushed the boundaries of the rules in 2002 when he was the leader of his party. That is something he is very keen to extinguish from memory today. To be fair I would say I would probably want to do the same if I were in his situation but the point is that his false outrage is a little bit hard to swallow in that regard. 
This bill is actually quite a simple bill. It is about whether the current legislative framework under which we are operating right now should be extended through to June 2009. I wish we were actually debating a substantial rewrite of the rules that would provide an enduring legislative framework but unfortunately we are so close to a general election that it has been impossible to reach agreement among parties on such a framework. For that very reason it is essential that we extend this current interim framework until 2009. The Government’s hope is that that will allow parties to work together outside of the heat of an election campaign and come up with some enduring rules that we can all agree on and importantly abide by. 
 In commending the bill to the House I also acknowledge the support for this measure that has come from across the Chamber. It is not often that Labour and ACT agree on an issue let alone Labour ACT the Greens New Zealand First and United Future. But I think that shows that this is not an example of Labour trying to foist something on the House. This bill has grown out of a genuine consultation between parties across the House and is an example of the benefit of parties working together in good faith. It is a shame that the National Party could not bring itself to see this process through. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is all about Labour rorting our electoral laws. It gives the fingers to the Auditor-General. It is dirty slimy legislation that brings into gross disrepute this Parliament respect for the rule of law and the very democracy we have. 
Let me just recite the dirty history that lies behind this bill. At the last election Labour put out a pledge card in Helen Clark’s name—$800000 of public money was spent on it. That was despite the fact that the Auditor-General had given very clear warnings to all political parties 3 months prior to the election. When the Chief Electoral Officer raised the issue of the pledge card with Labour Party headquarters headquarters staff said it would be declared within Labour’s spending cap 3 days before the election. But then 3 days after the election they said it was not electioneering. We even had the gall of the Prime Minister telling the police that this pledge card was not electioneering. No New Zealander believes that. What sort of example is our Prime Minister giving running those sorts of fibs past the New Zealand Police? 
When the Auditor-General bravely reported in 2006 that that pledge card was illegal Labour passed retrospective law to make it legal again. That was an appalling precedent. The signal that Labour has given is to cheat on the electoral laws do whatever it takes to win an election then pass a law afterwards to retrospectively make it right. That is appalling. Labour breached the law in two respects: firstly with the illegal use of taxpayers’ money; and secondly by not including it within its declaration of expenses. Yet what Labour is doing—firstly with this bill; and secondly with the Electoral Finance Bill—is making those two illegal acts lawful in the future. 
The real exposure of the gall of this bill is the different definitions. I want to read them to the House so that Parliament sees the contradiction. In respect of this bill electoral advertising when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money is defined very very narrowly. We members can spend the money on any advertising we like providing we do not use the words “vote National” or “vote Labour” and providing we do not solicit party members or party funds. Anything beyond those limits is not considered electoral advertising in this bill. 
Those are the rules for us; let us look at the rules and definition of electoral advertising for the public. For the public any form of words or graphics that encourage or persuade voters to vote and any taking of a position on a proposition that any one party or candidate might have is constituted as electoral advertising. I have a simple question for members opposite: when it comes to electoral advertising in this bill why is it that we have to use the words “vote” or “become a member” or “give us some money” but when it comes to the public the definition of electoral advertising is anything that comments on any issue of which any political party or candidate might have a view? It is nothing less than a total rort. 
I want to go back though a little bit further in history. What has governed electoral law and elections are the key decisions made in 1988 in the Reg Boorman case. In 1988 Reg Boorman was thrown out of this Parliament for breaking the rules of the Electoral Act. The key thing Reg Boorman did was use parliamentary money to secure his re-election in the Wairarapa. The judge made some key decisions that have affected the interpretation of the law since. In trying to work out what was electioneering when MPs went about their normal course of work he set some pretty common-sense rules. He said that if for instance MPs had advertised their services as constituency MPs every single week then they were quite entitled to do that every week during the election period. If they sent out 300 or 400 letters each month to constituents during the normal course of their work during the 3 years of their terms then it was fine to do so also in the election period. 
But this bill reverses that Reg Boorman law. Firstly this bill states that MPs can spend money on any advertising they like providing it does not say “vote”. Equally the Electoral Finance Bill states that any of that budget that is spent is not to be included within the cap which is what ultimately cost Reg Boorman his seat. Let us be quite plain. If Reg Boorman had managed his election campaign under these rules nothing would be wrong. We are overturning that law. 
Let us flow through and see how that affects things. You see under the law any person who wants to stand for Parliament is limited to spending $20000. That $20000 figure—the $20000 that is to be spent in the 3 months prior to the election—has not changed for 12 years. If one goes to any electoral manual as every contesting politician in this Parliament would know one would see that candidates need to spend at least $1 per voter just to get their names known. It is a dollar per voter just for that voter to know a candidate’s name. Our electorates have 55000 people in them. That is $55000. So we are to say to any members of the public who want to stand for Parliament that they can spend only $20000 not just within the 3 months prior to the election but in all of the election year. Then with this bill members are saying that they will give themselves $65000 that they will change the law and that they will exclude that amount from being included in their spending limits. 
Let us be honest about another cute little feature: members are bulk funded. They can spend that money anytime they like. Any member of this House can save up all his or her $65000 and spend it in this financial year which ends on 30 June and on 1 July next year that member will get another big chunk of money—$35000. So technically speaking members are writing in this law that they as members of Parliament will be able to spend $100000 of public money on advertising and promoting themselves in their electorates; they will be able to get another $20000 which is declared; and any person wanting to contest their seats can spend only $20000. That is a 6:1 ratio. I would ask whether any member here really believes that is fair. Labour is setting up Parliament as a closed shop. If members apply these laws long term every constituency member of this Parliament is effectively guaranteeing that nobody will be able to contest his or her seat fairly because of the consecutive rorts that Labour is setting up with this bill. 
I say that this bill is a disgrace. It is a cynical perversion of our electoral laws. The risk I say to my fellow parliamentarians is that this place makes itself irrelevant if it does not have a fair mandate from the communities that members seek to represent. All the criticisms I have made of the unfair contest that this bill sets up in electorates—in stating that electorate MPs effectively can spend $120000 with $100000 of that as public money securing their re-election but anybody else can spend only $20000—are pointing out that the bill is really taking away the democratic accountability that should go with this electoral process and with electoral law. 
I say that this is an absolute disgrace. This bill is about only one objective. It is about Labour members trying to secure their seats and their position in the Government at any price. Their recipe is to dig deep into the taxpayers’ pockets by increasing the budgets for MPs and parties and to change the rules so that members can spend money on anything they like overruling what the Auditor-General said was fair and about what could be spent. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that that was a disgraceful speech. That member could have done a lot better. He has distorted the view the public will take of what an MP spends his or her money on. He has undermined this very occupation big time. He gets $65000 a year as any constituent MP does—list MPs get a good deal less I might add—and not one cent of it is wasted on electioneering. We advertise ourselves we advertise clinics we provide an office and we provide all the equipment in that office with that money. That member should have at least acknowledged that. If he even thinks that he will go out and spend $65000 a year on promoting himself as an MP in this place then I would say to him that he should not be here. He should be ashamed of himself even for thinking that. 
Clearly we need this law. We need this law and the simple reason we do I tell this House is that the Auditor-General did not understand the previous process. The Auditor-General did not understand the previous process. As far as New Zealand First is concerned the Auditor-General got it wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member Nick Smith that he has stretched the boundaries of interjection all afternoon and I ask him not to barrack consistently as he has just done to the member. I call Peter Brown. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s just corrupt. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not care whether the member apologises or withdraws. The man is a fool. He should be out of here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member Nick Smith that I will not take any more. 
PETER BROWN 
: The other morning Gerry Brownlee was on  
Morning Report  
with the Rt Hon Winston Peters debating this very bill. Winston sat there in silence whilst Gerry Brownlee put his case. Then when Winston put his case the member Gerry Brownlee interrupted no end and at one point he said that there was no definition of electioneering. We have a three-page bill here and the definition takes up quite a lot of space on it. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should listen and maybe he will learn something. The definition of electioneering is when a member goes out and asks for a vote for the individual or the party. He or she is then electioneering. The definition of electioneering— 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it different—why is it different? 
PETER BROWN 
: I ask that member to listen and she will learn something. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member can interject once or twice. She cannot barrack at the member with constant questions. That has gone on with two or three members this afternoon. I have given three warnings. This is the last warning. I have asked members to desist and the next time members will leave. 
PETER BROWN 
: Electioneering is asking for a vote either for the individual or for the party. Electioneering is asking for membership. Electioneering is asking for funds; that is electioneering. It is defined exactly in this bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member has given a definition of electioneering so I seek leave to table the definition of electioneering in the Electoral Finance Bill which does not define electioneering in the manner that he read. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debating point but of course the member can ask for leave. It is usual to do it at the end of a member’s speech and not interrupt the speech. The member has asked for leave to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is obviously quite confused. I think Madam Assistant Speaker that you should advise National members that we are debating not the Electoral Finance Bill but the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. That is where the definition that I am referring to is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. The member will continue please. 
PETER BROWN 
: That decision is easily understood. The document that we produced at the last election outlines New Zealand First’s policies. It was distributed before the election period and it is now still being distributed. It does not ask for a vote it does not ask for any money and it does not ask for membership. Another thing we have to comply with is having the crest on the back or somewhere and we have to have contact numbers. Our document has all of those things. It was taken to the Parliamentary Service for its approval and the service approved it. But the Auditor-General in his wisdom said that it did not qualify. Yet the Auditor-General said to the Hon Peter Dunne that two parties in this House were captured by his report and they should not have been in there—namely United Future and New Zealand First. Peter Dunne asked the Auditor-General whether he would make that clear but the Auditor-General said no he would not. 
So we have a document here that will cost us a lot of money. It is a document that complied with the rules and that was checked off by the referee the Parliamentary Service. But the Auditor-General said in his report that it did not comply although he told Peter Dunne privately—and National members can ask Peter Dunne themselves if they doubt my word—that New Zealand First and United Future had not broken the rules. We had followed the rules exactly. 
We need this law if for no other reason than to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General. It has been asserted here that the Auditor-General gave a very clear message beforehand. He gave nothing to New Zealand First. He had produced a report some months before that had dealt largely with ministerial spending. The Auditor-General did talk with Don Brash for well over an hour. Don Brash has admitted that. The Auditor-General did not talk to Winston Peters. He did not talk to me as the deputy leader of New Zealand First. I know that he did not talk to many other people but he did talk to Don Brash. He did alert Don Brash to his concerns—I will give the Auditor-General that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because the others refused to meet with him. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I say to the honourable member that there was no invitation for the others—like New Zealand First—to meet with the Auditor-General. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the Auditor-General to the leaders of each of the political parties prior to 2005 seeking a meeting to discuss the use of parliamentary— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PETER BROWN 
: The importance of a letter comes when one receives it not when it is tabled years after the event to say that it existed. No letter was received by New Zealand First and no meeting took place. 
The law that we are supporting right now is an extension of the current law. It should be expiring next month but we are extending it to take it past the next election—I think as Dr Cullen said to take the emotional heat out of the issue. Clearly we need some rules clearly we need some guidelines and clearly this law will do the job at hand. I say that from our point of view we welcome it. We welcome a law that governs this procedure as far as MPs are concerned. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that political parties MPs or candidates for political parties cannot go out there and outline their political policy. That is absolutely ridiculous. There is an obligation that befalls us all to go out there say what we stand for and explain it. That is what people vote for. We are not in here for our looks or our talent. We are here because we represent people who choose to vote for a political party that addresses the issues they are concerned about. It is an obligation that befalls all the political parties in this House. 
The message from the public is that they fully understand there have to be some guidelines and some rules in place under which MPs and political parties have to operate. We think this is particularly fair; it is not onerous. It allows us a good deal of freedom to explain what we want and what we stand for. We think New Zealanders are entitled to that. We know that politics is a tough hard game. We know that people need to compare one political candidate with another. Therefore we have to have rules that allow political parties to go out and sell their message and to say what they stand for on an individual basis as well so that the public can make its choice. That is what democracy is all about—the public having the final say. But to govern that some rules need to be in place. This bill will do that. It is a simple bill. 
Sandra Goudie 
: With Winston in the Government he gets to use taxpayers’ money. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member keeps on interjecting. I am sure that sooner or later she will say something that is worthwhile listening to. 
Ron Mark 
: Don’t bank on it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will not bank on it. The Parliamentary Service has gone through the rules and the Speaker has given new directions that I think every party has signed up to. I know privately that the National Party has signed up to them. I might add that when we were making the rules before we had this legislation when we were determining the five points about 5 or 6 years ago—we must not ask for votes we must not ask for money we must not ask for membership we must have contact numbers and we must show the crest on the document—the people making the loudest and the longest noise on the Parliamentary Service Commission were members of the National Party. National agreed that it supported all of those points and all that has happened since is that we have put those Speaker’s directions into law. I say that this will be a helpful piece of legislation when it comes to the next election. Thank you. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I begin by referring to Mr Brown who said that we are not here because of our talent. I just want to assure him—and I do not care what anybody else says—that I do not think he is entirely useless! 
The Greens are supporting the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill but not because it is a good bill in our view or because we think it makes this place a lot more democratic. We are supporting this bill because we think that we have no choice. Neither Labour nor National has come up with a clear set of guidelines that really addresses the concerns of the Auditor-General about how taxpayers’ money is spent by political parties during election years. So we are supporting this bill because it has been impossible to get agreement on a more democratic process that is able to deal with new technologies new ways of communicating and new more appropriate ways of involving young people in political debate and that is able to communicate the work that we do here with people more generally in the public. 
We see this bill as a kind of holding action that simply extends interim guidelines and slightly improves the previous situation. But it fails to address messy and ambiguous legislation under which MPs remain unclear about how we use some of our Parliamentary Service funding and this continues to cause concern amongst the public about the way public money is applied. We would rather have a different process entirely. The Green Party would rather have a process that took these kinds of decisions out of the hands of those with the biggest vested interest—us the politicians—and put them into the hands of the citizenry. We have long promoted the use of a citizens’ assembly where people from many walks of life including outside experts in the parliamentary process can look at the way taxpayers’ funds are used by political parties and make decisions around them. 
We would apply this process not just to this bill but to the Electoral Finance Bill. We think it is vital that we open these questions up to the people of New Zealand not just through a submission process—and that word “submission” is itself instructive in terms of how we view the public—but through giving some real decision-making over to the people that is grounded in comprehensive information and discussion. Unfortunately there is no time for that this year though we have been lobbying hard for it. We still hope we can have a citizens’ assembly at a later date—a citizens’ assembly where political parties do not decide the rules around what they spend and how they spend it but where we have a more democratic process to come up with clear and fair guidelines and most important a process that benefits not just the big parties but all parties. This is not a novel idea. An independent inquiry into campaign finance reform along these lines has been recently used in Canada. We believe that one could start in early 2009 or even before if we could get support from other parties. 
When it comes to the substance of this bill we say that of course we must use parliamentary resources to explain and promote the work of Parliament and parliamentarians. That is our responsibility and obligation as members of this House. MPs are elected to pursue policies and to promote political philosophies on behalf of the public. Debate discussion and persuasion are what we are all about—in here and in public. Discussing the business of this House debating the ideas associated with the business of this House and hearing feedback from members of the public are vital parts of our jobs. 
However after the 2005 election the Auditor-General ruled for example that newspaper advertisements inviting the public to discussions with Green MPs on climate change and oil depletion were out of order even though the adverts made no reference to the election. I myself held a public meeting on Waiheke Island to talk with young people about their rights under the law because they were being harassed by the police. That according to the Auditor-General was electioneering even though the intended audience was under 18 and unable even to vote! Whatever else the Auditor-General’s ruling provoked it demonstrated very clearly that we need clear rules about what is OK and what is not. Although we did not necessarily agree with the Auditor-General’s decision we respected the fact that he is the umpire and paid the money back. 
Next year there is another election and we want to know clearly where we stand. We want to be able to do our jobs as MPs in informing the public about policies and about the business of this Parliament and the issues that it is discussing—or not discussing given that we continue to ignore important issues. 
We do not think this bill has found the perfect solution but we think it is better to have clear rules than not to. We cannot have a robust democracy if the public does not know what is going on in Parliament or what MPs and parties stand for. This House is a pretty strange self-referential world and members easily become more and more divorced from ordinary people and their concerns—particularly the concerns from certain sections of the public. This is especially true of young people who increasingly use new modes of communication that are unfamiliar to many members of this House. This bill reinforces that divorce between young people and our Parliament through its lack of recognition of those new modes of communication. In our view that is one of the reasons why we need a citizens’ assembly—to allow some new perspectives into these discussions. 
As I have said we view telling the public what we think about legislation and issues of public concern as being a core part of an MP’s job. Letting New Zealanders know what our policies are on issues like student loans climate change health care and their human rights is a part of our work. We cannot have spending rules that prohibitively restrict that kind of communication. Part of being a good parliamentarian is holding public meetings where people can ask questions and get answers. Those meetings can now be virtual. Using new technologies—and being clear that we can do so by using parliamentary funds—to communicate with young people especially should be part of being an MP. This enhances the robustness of our democracy and improves the ability of all New Zealanders to take part in political discussion and promote ideas that they believe in. 
It can be difficult to draw a line between where the work of a parliamentarian stops and electioneering starts. We acknowledge that. This will continue to be difficult. For example Labour has promised not to have another pledge card this election even though under this legislation that is still possible. 
Although we are supporting this bill we are not supporting the status quo. We are supporting this bill although wanting to have much clearer guidelines in future elections and in the meantime we are seeking much clearer guidelines from the Speaker. We have already started the process as members know of seeking clearer rulings in respect of the way in which some of our funds are spent. We hope to continue that dialogue. With this unsatisfactory patch-up job I am afraid that the Speaker’s job will be much harder as ours as parliamentarians is in terms of trying to interpret old-fashioned guidelines when we are trying to use new technologies some of which are not all that new—for example websites. Again we are already in dialogue with you Madam Assistant Speaker as you know about the use of websites. What about newer technologies like YouTube and iPods? In this context it is ridiculous that we are doing a patch-up job on old legislation that does not even have rules on these kinds of new media. 
Although we have misgivings about this bill we would be in a worse position without it. If we argue as National seems to be arguing that we cannot use parliamentary funding to get our message to the public then we would be accepting that only those who have rich corporate backers should be able to discuss political ideas. We do not believe that the wealthy should have the upper hand in political debate simply as a result of their wealth; nor do we believe that a poorly informed citizenry can support a democracy. Democracy is about the active engagement of the people of our land and we will be the worse for having rules that inhibit that engagement. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Over the last week there has been a great deal of political posturing and jostling for air time about the concept of the rule of law. Two of the minor parties desperate to reach the threshold have levelled wild accusations at one of my colleagues that he is supposedly “insisting he will flout the rule of law.” The concept of the rule of law is absolutely relevant to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill and as such is worthy of some definition. T R S Allan in  
Law Liberty and Justice 
 defines the rule of law as “An amalgam of standards expectations and aspirations: it encompasses traditional ideas about liberty and natural justice and more generally ideas about the requirements of justice and fairness in the relations between government and the governed.” That of course is where it all becomes subject to interpretation. 
The offence taken by two minor parties arose from a comment Mr Harawira made about the Terrorism Suppression Act namely: “I will not sit quietly by while State forces terrorise my people. If this requires of me that I speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Maori communities in this country then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this Chamber on television in newspapers and anywhere else I possibly can.” 
The rule of law that Mr Harawira was following most certainly adheres to the requirements of justice and fairness that we would expect to see in relations between government and the governed. But does that same rule of law make it acceptable for the National Party to refuse to pay $112500 of GST owed on the 2005 election advertisements screened on television? Does that same rule of law make it acceptable for New Zealand First to misspend $157934 of taxpayers’ funds at the 2005 election and over 2 years later for the debt to be still unpaid? How can political parties misspend over $1 million of taxpayer funds without Baycorp the Inland Revenue Department the Serious Fraud Office or any other debt collector knocking on their door to pick up the unpaid dues? Is this the same rule of law that is applied in the concept of one law for all? 
When we think about “justice and fairness in the relations between government and the governed” we cannot go far without remembering the events of last October when Parliament passed a bill to validate parliamentary spending back to 1989. The bill was passed under urgency to validate the invalid to push through legislation that would authorise the illegal expenditure. Were parliamentary standards breached? Was the rule of law overthrown? What are the standards that apply when public moneys are misspent? Was the mere move to turn invalid spending into valid spending the Government’s attempt to turn water into wine making use of its legislative power for its own self-interest? Was parliamentary power misappropriated to serve the Labour Party well? Under whose gaze was the invalid spending being validated? 
We in the Maori Party are motivated by standards expectations and aspirations in keeping with the rule of law of tikanga and kaupapa Maori. The kaupapa that we believe to be the most relevant to this bill continuing the interim meaning of funding for parliamentary purposes are rangatiratanga or leadership; kaitiakitanga or sustainable protection of taonga; kotahitanga or unity of purpose; and manaakitanga or mana enhancement. It follows then that the pursuit of tikanga such as accountability transparency and integrity give expression to rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga and as such uphold the rule of law according to Te Ao Maori—the Maori World. We are a party motivated by the practice of walking the talk. Transparency is the means by which we enhance democratic political participation. We maintain that disclosure of the rules and definitions and more particularly the range of possible interpretations related to expenditure for parliamentary purposes must be blatantly clear across the House. It is the interests of the wider democratic State not just those of Parliament that should dominate our thinking as we consider the meaning of taxpayer-funded parliamentary spending. 
I come back to the discussion around the rule of law. How can any party agree to the roll-out of the appropriations law for the election advertising and campaigning costs when it is blatantly evident that the parties across the House have been unable to reach consensus over issues such as third-party sponsorship party donations setting up trusts and other related issues? 
 New Zealand has been watching this Parliament as it attempts to come to terms with various models of electoral reform being played out and as people watch they have not been impressed. I refer to one New Zealand citizen who wrote to us in April this year about these very issues. I will call him Malcolm. I want to share his views about the proposed electoral reform. Malcolm said: “My grandfather fought such forces in the Second World War to avoid this type of system being imposed on New Zealand. No parliament no political party should ever be as arrogant as to change New Zealand’s democratic system without either testing such a policy through a general election or putting it to a referendum.” 
We believe that the exercise of democratic participation is of such prime importance that the people must be intimately involved in guiding the Parliament onwards. In its effect this massive bill of 3 entire pages does nothing to move us forward from the catastrophic debacle that followed the 2005 elections. The bill in restoring the meaning of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes to that commonly understood before Mr Kevin Brady’s report as Controller and Auditor-General has sent the Parliament into a spin. 
We in the Maori Party had been satisfied with the rules surrounding election campaign expenditure and sources of campaign finance as set out in the Electoral Act 1993. We understood those rules and terms to be explicit and unambiguous and as such we were mortified when we found we had misspent the sum of $48 following the election washup. However it is one thing to have clear rules in place and quite another to receive independent advice that those rules have not been routinely followed or applied. That is the process that we now find ourselves in. The 2006 report of the Controller and Auditor-General takes us to a place vastly different from the one we were in prior to the 2005 elections. We cannot simply ignore his advice or pretend that the expert independent opinion we have received is somewhat irrelevant. 
This bill forces parties to revert to what had been the status quo prior to such a controversial and comprehensive report of our collective failings. We in the Maori Party cannot freely willingly adopt a position of perceived ignorance when we all know that many measures are required to make general improvements to the funding of parliamentary purposes. We will be voting against this bill. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 When I first came to this House 23 years ago I recall very clearly being told by my senior colleagues at that time and by the officials of the legislative department that the funding that would be available to me as a member of Parliament to assist me in my activities as a member of Parliament could not be used to solicit support for my party to invite people to join my party or to invite people to donate funds to my party. 
Over the last 23 years those three core understandings have guided successive generations of members of Parliament and successive parties and Governments in this Parliament about the way in which the funding that is directed towards us as members of Parliament is to be applied. It is quite a separate situation from the provisions of the Electoral Act in so far as they relate to the funding of political parties—not members of Parliament but political parties—and political candidates for election purposes. 
The change occurred in the wake of the ruling of the Auditor-General after the last election which effectively stated that the long-held understandings set out in the  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
 and the various guidelines issued by successive Speakers and chairs of the Parliamentary Service Commission were now to be interpreted by him in a way that differed from all of the interpretations that applied previously. I do not want to get into an argument about whether he was right or wrong—that is history—but the reality was that he applied a different set of standards. He then challenged Parliament to review its rules but significantly he did not offer any advice as to what those rules should be. So Parliament was faced with a challenge to sort things out—“I don’t like what you’ve done despite the fact that I liked it previously. I’m not explaining to you why I’ve had a change of heart but you now sort it out.” 
Treasury then advised the Minister of Finance that on the basis of that advice from the Auditor-General there was a legitimate question about the validity of all parliamentary expenditure back to the time of the passage of the Public Finance Act in 1989. As a consequence of that advice the Minister of Finance brought to Parliament about a year ago legislation to validate that expenditure in terms of the provisions of the Public Finance Act given the warning implied in Treasury’s advice that there might be a question as to the expenditure’s validity in the wake of the Auditor-General’s report. 
Following on from that parties in this Parliament began informal discussions about a way forward. The chiefs of staff of the various parties have been meeting for many months now to try to work out what a new regime might be. It is fair to say that until about a couple of months ago—funnily enough about the time that the heat on the Electoral Finance Bill started to intensify—good progress was being made. At that point it all fell apart and we were faced with the situation—and we are still faced with the situation—whereby the legislation that was passed last year to give us breathing space until the end of this calendar year is rapidly running out of time and no replacement is in place. So if we do not pass a new Act now we face a situation whereby from the start of next year considerable ambiguity applies. 
There are various levels of interpretation as to what the situation might be at that point. The most extreme interpretation that is around is the same one that was raised last year which is that the absence of any legislation will lead the Parliamentary Service Commission and Parliamentary Service to effectively freeze all expenditure for the avoidance of doubt as to its legality. 
At the other end of the spectrum is the claim made in the House this afternoon that nothing much will really change and that the status quo will simply prevail. Well I want to remind the House what that status quo would be. It would be the situation we all thought we were in prior to the Auditor-General’s report. When it is clear that most of the parties in this House at that time had one set of understandings and expectations about that situation and that the Auditor-General had an entirely different set then simply to revert to that status quo is a completely unacceptable situation and a recipe for doubt and chaos going on into the future. 
So in the absence of agreement having been reached—for reasons that are nothing to do with this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill but everything to do with a wider political game about the Electoral Finance Bill—it became necessary to bring forward further interim legislation which will apply until a date in 2009 to ensure that the understandings that were put in place last year in the wake of the original report and Treasury advice can carry on through next year for the avoidance of doubt. 
That is all this issue is about. It is relatively simple and mechanical legislation the need for which arises because of the turn of circumstances since the passage of the original bill last year. The debate that will be held over the next few weeks about the Electoral Finance Bill and its provisions is quite separate from this debate because this bill makes it clear in law for the second time that members of Parliament cannot use the funding advanced to them to solicit for votes to solicit for support for their particular parties or to solicit for membership and funding for their particular parties. That is a very clear definition of what constitutes election activity. It is prohibited for members of Parliament to use their public funding for electoral purposes. That is clear-cut well stated and unambiguous. 
The issue of political campaigning is dealt with by the Electoral Finance Bill and as I said that is a separate debate. But if one takes the argument that has been raised here to its logical conclusion it would go something like this: everything that members of Parliament do is directed towards their re-election so helping a constituent with a difficult immigration problem working through with a local community the ways in which a pedestrian crossing might be installed on a dangerous street and dealing with the myriad other examples we can think of that we all do week in and week out by that extreme definition all constitute election activity. 
One could say that that is a bit extreme; it is not quite as bad as that. There is a clear boundary here but I ask where that boundary is. If someone writes to me and asks me what my policy is on dangerous dogs if I send back a glossy pamphlet stating “Here is our policy.” then according to some lights I am breaching the law in terms of what is electioneering. If I write that person a letter crafted in my parliamentary office in parliamentary time and sent on parliamentary letterhead that is an OK activity. If I telephone that person from my office that is apparently an OK activity. 
The point I am making is that some very ridiculous boundaries are being drawn. This bill simply enables members of Parliament to get on with the job we have all been elected to do. If anyone suggests that this advantages incumbents of any particular political persuasion then I say to them that they are treating the New Zealand public as fools and the New Zealand public are not that. They see through cant and hypocrisy and they make their decisions election after election on whom they wish to support based on performance and on their perception of what is in the country’s best interest. I have never yet in all my time in this House come across a situation whereby an election has been decided on the way in which a party or an individual has used the funding advanced to them to carry out their duties as members of Parliament. That is all this bill is about. 
The high-flown hyperbole and debate should rest for another day when we debate the Electoral Finance Bill. But in the meantime we should get on with passing this bill to enable us to do the very job we were elected to do. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is a great shame that the member who has just sat down Peter Dunne did not speak first. To try to get a little bit of history and background into the debate before all the hyperbole whinging moaning and grizzling would have been quite helpful. The recollections the member has about the way in which parliamentary funding is used are exactly my recollections and I have been here 17 years. Of course the issue was thrown up into dispute but I think that the fundamental point the member made is that this is actually quite a simple matter and is not related to any other matter. It is a simple matter that unless we pass this legislation now it will create huge confusion about what can be spent as part of the parliamentary budget. For example one of the options and possibly the most extreme option that the member mentioned was that maybe we will have to freeze all our electorate office finances. You know we may not be able to honour our lease agreements for example. That could well be one of the outcomes of this. So it is very very simple legislation that just extends the time from 31 December 2007 to 30 June 2009—very simple legislation. 
If people had listened to the debate they would think that the National Party never ever spent any Parliamentary Service money. That is what they would think if they had listened to those members. They would think that no money had ever been spent by the National Party. Of course the media are now reporting because of the way that Parliament works—and the fact that we have Ministers on our side of the House and National has not—that National gets the most money from the Parliamentary Service. In fact I think it is of the order of $7 million. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How much? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think it is of the order of $7 million. So the basic question that I want to ask the National Party is simply this: if it is so morally outraged by this legislation will it make a commitment now that it will not spend one single cent of that $7 million? I ask Anne Tolley whether she will make a commitment in this House because she is so outraged by what we are doing that she will not spend one single cent of the $7 million allocated by the Parliamentary Service to the National Party. I ask Sandra Goudie whether she will stand up and say that she will not spend one single cent of the $7 million allocated. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She wouldn’t know. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Probably not. I ask Mark Blumsky whether he will stand and make a commitment because he is so outraged by this legislation that he will not spend one single cent of the $7 million allocated. I wonder whether Tau Henare who is also outraged by this legislation will make a commitment to not spend one single cent of the allocated $7 million. The point of the matter is simply this: although we have all the hollow outrage from the National Party it will continue to spend Parliamentary Service money. So the next speaker from the National Party and I think it will be Anne Tolley when she stands to make her contribution should tell the public that yes National members are morally outraged by this legislation but that they will continue notwithstanding their vote against this legislation to vote for the money that Parliament allocated to them. Indeed this is very odd. The question then is: will the National Party commit itself to not spending money that was actually allocated this year? 
Anne Tolley 
: Hold it up! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Here it is. It is an advertisement with a photo of John Key and it is headed: “Join the conversation”. I am amused at the kind of conversation that one would have with John Key—“Do I remember this can I recall that?”. I am asking the National Party and Anne Tolley whether she is saying that this advertisement was OK in 2007 yet now she is voting against it. 
Here is another interesting advertisement. It was produced in May 2007 and refers to 10 steps that a new National Government’s first Budget will take. Putting aside the misleading advertising in the document itself I will ask a question to Tau Henare over there who is looking amused. Who funded this document? I would hazard a guess that this advertisement which has both the parliamentary crest and the National Party logo on it was funded by the Parliamentary Service. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Surely not! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well I will hazard a guess that it was. I will be interested to know whether Anne Tolley when she stands up will tell us whether the Parliamentary Service funded that. If the Parliamentary Service funded that I ask Anne Tolley why she is opposed to this bill. It is a very simple question you see yet there is no answer from the National Party. 
Here is another advertisement. It states: “My commitment”. Well there was a lot of talk about commitment. This one was produced in 2002 by Bill English. There is a whole pile of waffle on it about getting tough on crime and all of that stuff. I wonder how this was funded. I wonder whether it was funded by the cake stalls that the National Party members run—I do not know whether they run cake stalls but we do—or whether it was funded by the Parliamentary Service. I will hazard a guess because it has the parliamentary logo on it that it was funded by the Parliamentary Service. Therefore we get into the position of using a word that we are not allowed to say in this Parliament because the National Party will vote against the bill and rage against it with its members saying that it is a constitutional and moral outrage—though I must say that they do not give those speeches as strongly as we used to when we were in Opposition—yet still spend the money. That is the basic point. 
I also have here a letter from the National Party leader John Key that went out to a number of community organisations. This letter talks about what the National Party would do if it ever got into Government so there is not much debate about that. If National got into Government this is what it would do for the voluntary and community sector. The letter talks about tax-free reimbursement of expenses and tax-free honoraria payments. There is a lot of talk of spending in this letter but of course I have never been able to work out how one can cut a lot and spend a lot more. I wonder who funded this letter and I wonder how much it cost. I am not sure how many organisations this letter went to. I presume it would have gone to quite a few organisations. It was sent out on letterhead so there is the cost of the paper the cost of the photocopying the cost of the envelopes and then there is the cost of the postage. I would imagine that this was quite an expensive exercise and that it was funded by the Parliamentary Service. If this letter was sent out in June 2007 by the Parliamentary Service and if this legislation is saying in respect of this kind of funding that until we can get together and sort out the rules that the National Party welshed on we need to confirm this by legislation so this kind of thing can be done why oh why is National voting against it? 
 So I ask Anne Tolley when she stands to give just a simple commitment. Will she or will she not give a commitment that she will spend none of the $7 million allocated by Parliamentary Service under the current vote? If she is not prepared to say that she will not spend any of that money can she then explain to the House why she is voting against this legislation with all the moral outrage that goes with it? It is quite a simple matter. 
I want to finish where Peter Dunne left off. This is extremely simple legislation. It just continues the arrangement until June 2009 until such time as we can get together and come forward with some rules that clarify all this. This legislation simply extends the time. I ask National members finally to clarify why oh why they are voting against the legislation when National will spend the money that is allocated. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I seek leave for the outgoing Labour member Paul Swain to table the excellent tax deduction letter for charitable donations and to table the excellent poster of the handsome and youthful leader John Key please? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that she cannot ask another member to table documents. That is over to the member himself or herself. That is not a point of order. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 When the former junior Labour whip Darren Hughes stood up to speak to this bill earlier on this afternoon he said it was a very simple bill. I agree with him. It is actually a very simple bill that we are debating here this afternoon. It is State funding in drag. That is what this bill is about. It is about funding for MPs and parliamentary parties and about giving them extra privileges over what the general public can have—it is State funding in drag. 
I just want to start by talking about the process of how we got here today. It largely relates to the rather inept former Minister of Justice Mark Burton who has been talking about this validating legislation on the Parliamentary Service Commission for months. He has been talking since at least May or June about the need to debate and negotiate the ongoing rules when this validating legislation is due to run out at the end of the year. What did he do about it? He did absolutely nothing but talk. Perhaps that is why he is the former Minister of Justice. In actual fact despite what has been said by a couple of Labour members in the House today no sensible negotiations started on what was to replace this validating legislation until at least towards the end of August and then as the United Future leader said there were a couple of meetings between the chiefs of staff. Well that is not about genuine consultation. That is not about the major parties sitting down to work out a viable sensible fair and equitable regime for the electoral law of this country. We now have a situation in the third-to-last week that this House will sit this year of a rollover bill being introduced into the House to proceed through all stages forthwith. That is not good process. That is not democratic. 
Electoral law defines electioneering quite clearly. It is advertising or communications that are of a certain nature. Also it has always been defined as happening within a certain time frame. That time frame is normally close to an election day. Why? Well someone recently talked about why Hallensteins advertises a sale in the nights or days before it is going to have that sale. The answer is because that is when people are interested. So election law in this country has recognised that the general public is interested in an election only when it is close to that election. If one looks at the spending that parties candidates and MPs do on selling themselves as a product which is what they all do we see that the concentration of that spending is always in the weeks leading up to an election because that is when they get the best attention from the public the best engagement and the best chance of selling their message. 
National’s position right throughout this debacle has been that electoral law should be fair for everyone and that is the position that we have argued in this House today. This bill sets up a regime that gives incumbents whether they are parliamentary parties or MPs a distinct advantage. 
Last election the Auditor-General caught parties spending on electioneering using their parliamentary funding. We have heard members from a couple of the other parties here in the House today saying that they did not know it is not fair and the Auditor-General is wrong. Taxpayers’ dollars funded parties’ election campaigns. In the last election year in the 3-month period leading up to the election which is the prime election time taxpayers had to put their hands in their pockets and fund parties’ campaigns. The Auditor-General said that that was wrong and those parties had to pay the money back. In other words those parties were electioneering as defined in the Electoral Act during that 3-month period leading up to the election. 
Labour’s pledge card of $800000-odd was electioneering. It broke two laws. It broke the Parliamentary Service Act which actually controls parliamentary spending and says as we have heard members say that one cannot spend that money soliciting votes. It also broke the Electoral Act because in fact if that $800000 was included it would have broken Labour’s spending cap. But the police did not prosecute because they were looking at the wrong bit of law. The police were inept. They should have taken a prosecution against the Labour Party. What is happening now? Well actually now Labour is changing the laws—both of them—to ensure that it will not get caught again. When most people get caught out breaking the law they change their behaviour. That is what we demand of our citizens. We demand that they change their behaviour. But this Government—this Labour Party—is not changing its behaviour. Labour is changing the rules because it has no integrity. Anyone with integrity would change their behaviour. Labour is changing the rules. 
We are here today debating an appropriation bill that will allow parliamentary funding to be used on soft election advertising and communications and they will not count towards a party’s or a candidate’s election spending cap under the Electoral Finance Bill which will be debated in the House next week. This means that a pamphlet letter or advertisement that is put out by the Labour Party HQ will count towards its electioneering cap. But if that same pamphlet letter or advertisement is put out by the Labour leader’s office with a parliamentary crest paid for by taxpayers and in the election period it will not count towards the cap. So the same document in a different place has different rules. That is what the National Party says is a rort of the system is unfair and is undemocratic. It is State funding in drag and this Labour Government is bringing in this legislation. 
Labour members have talked a lot about the desire for fairness but this piece of legislation will give a huge advantage to incumbents whether they are political parties that have parliamentary representation or individual MPs. It makes an absolute mockery of the spending cap and the regulated period which will be changed in the Electoral Finance Bill. All other New Zealanders will have to face a complicated regime. They will have to register. There are Draconian rules on how much money they can spend and how they can spend it and on what they say. This is a breathtaking double standard. 
We cannot take the bill we are debating tonight in isolation. We have to take it in concert with the Electoral Finance Bill. It has been designed that way and in fact that is the case. We cannot say we are just rolling over existing rules because the rules have been dramatically changed by the Electoral Finance Bill. The election period—the regulated period—will now start on 1 January. It will go for 11 months not just 3 months. So as my deputy leader Bill English explained the electoral spending cap for candidates means they will have only $20000 to spend over 11 months to establish their names and fight an election campaign. They could well be up against an MP who has a budget of $65000 at his or her disposal to get his or her name awareness out and to promote himself or herself around the district. That is an unfair advantage. Plus that MP will also have his or her $20000. That is a huge advantage that is being put into law by this Labour-led Government. Political advertising under the Electoral Finance Bill is highly regulated for the general public. This bill is a rort. It is an absolute disgrace for democracy in New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a first time. 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a day for some recanting and for some apology on the part of some people in this House who rushed out and gave their views about certain proceedings in the middle of the North Island and elsewhere without waiting for the due process of the law to take its course. Now that the Solicitor-General has decided he will not authorise actions under the terrorism suppression legislation I wonder what those members will say. They all knew apparently before everything ever happened that the whole system would be unfair and unjust to people who had been picked up by the police. Now today we know that that is not true. We know that serious charges still lie but in the case of the terrorism suppression legislation they will not. I hope that some of those members of Parliament who have been so cavalier about their responsibilities and so jaundiced in their view of our society and indeed of this Parliament will have the courage to come to this Parliament and say they were wrong. 
Pita Paraone 
: They won’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not suppose they will but it is time for some recanting. 
The legislation we seek to pass is the culmination of an extensive review of the Terrorism Suppression Act that was commenced by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. It is not connected in any way to the recent events even though many members of Parliament and other commentators have said as much. Recent events to some extent have diverted attention away from the substance of this bill. That is unfortunate because the genesis of the bill does not lie in those events but is a product of several years of work by the select committee and officials to strengthen and improve the working of the Act an Act that will obviously need further improvement. 
This bill will not substantially change the way the Act operates; rather its primary purpose is to make the Act more workable and to ensure that its provisions reflect New Zealand’s international obligations. The changes proposed will bring New Zealand law into line with that of other countries with which we share and enjoy the stability and security of fair and respected legal systems—one of which is to have by reference from the Attorney-General a finding from the Solicitor-General as to authorisation. By the way I suppose a lot of people wrote to the Attorney-General and said that just in case the Solicitor-General makes a mistake and says we should go ahead with the Terrorism Suppression Act charges he should override him. You know when people make public comment they really should be required to show a bit better knowledge of the law than that. 
I want to take this opportunity to clarify the effect of the bill’s more contentious provisions and to touch on the main amendments that will be made to the Act. First the bill proposes amendments to the current process for designating United Nations - listed terrorist activities or entities. Considerable confusion has surrounded the scope of this provision to the extent that some parties have claimed that the automatic adoption of the UN list of terrorists will affect the right of New Zealanders to support liberation struggles democracy and human rights overseas. I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UN list relates solely to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist entities. In order to comply with mandatory Security Council obligations new provisions were required to ensure that under UN resolution 1267 which deals with al-Qaeda and Taliban activities terrorists are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law and that those designations remain in force until entities are removed from the UN terrorist list. That will ensure that New Zealand complies with its obligations under the UN Charter. Under the law as previously drafted that was not assured. 
Responding to concerns that New Zealanders may be erroneously included on the UN list the select committee has recommended that the Minister of Foreign Affairs when exercising his or her authority to publish the UN list includes information as to how a designated person or group can seek removal from the list. That recommendation will be followed. If New Zealanders were ever included on the UN list the notice advertising the listing will set out the process for challenging the Security Council’s listing decision. In essence the persons could apply to be de-listed directly to the focal point established for that purpose by the Security Council committee that maintains the UN list. Alternatively they could ask the Government to submit a de-listing request on their behalf. 
Turning now to the process for designating non - UN-listed terrorist entities I would like to make clear that for the most part there will be no change to the current process. The Prime Minister is currently responsible for making interim and final designations on non - UN-listed terrorist entities. The bill will simply amend the process for renewing non - UN-listed designations after a 3-year period. The Prime Minister rather than the High Court will now be responsible for renewing a designation if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. That approach is consistent with that in similar jurisdictions whereby decisions at the renewal stage are made by the same office holder who made the original designation and the same test is applied. As the committee itself has noted decisions to renew a designation like decisions to make an initial designation involve judgments about national security and are more appropriately made by the executive than the judiciary. 
When the select committee was considering this bill it was careful to ensure that each amendment struck the appropriate balance between the preservation of civil liberties on the one hand and the need to protect New Zealand’s national security on the other hand. When considering the appropriate process for renewing designations we must note that the Act provides an important safeguard by virtue of the right to bring judicial review of designation decisions which is preserved in section 33. The committee added a further safeguard by inserting a new provision that will require the Prime Minister to report to the Intelligence and Security Committee when a designation is renewed. 
This bill will further enhance our counter-terrorism legislation by creating a new offence of committing a terrorist act. That offence is aimed at conduct involving terrorism that is at the very serious end of the spectrum and as such it can be seen as being similar to other international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. The offence carries a high threshold with the Attorney-General’s consent being necessary for prosecution. The definition of a terrorist act also sets a high threshold. To be classified as such the action must satisfy the intention purpose and outcome elements of the definition. That definition will be interpreted strictly and in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The bill will also bring increased certainty to the provisions of the Act relating to terrorist financing offences by repealing the avoidance of doubt provisions. Those provisions were designed to clarify the ambit of those offences; however they have done the opposite of that. The provisions have created uncertainty by confusing the mental elements of the offence. Because of the way the provisions are drafted they have the potential to undermine one of the key purposes of the legislation which is to criminalise the intentional financing of terrorist acts. That would be inconsistent with both Security Council resolutions and our own position that acts of terrorism cannot be justified. Removal of those provisions will not compromise the right of New Zealanders to engage in or financially support peaceful protest activity. The Act’s very definition of a terrorist act expressly states that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring the intent to commit a terrorist act. 
This bill will also incorporate amendments necessary to bring New Zealand up to date with its international obligations by creating new offences involving nuclear and radioactive material. Those are required for ratification of the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and to ensure compliance with recent amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. 
I will close by saying that I commend this bill to the House because it is required. It needs to be passed before 1 December 2007 in order to meet our international obligations. But I end this speech where I started by saying that today is a good chance for some of my colleagues in this Parliament to begin to recant and apologise for their irresponsible unparliamentary juvenile jingoistic and insensitive behaviour in so far as the law enforcement authorities of this country are concerned. The Solicitor-General has commended the police for their processes and for the way that they went about their business. He said that in all of that no one was shot and no one was hurt. The police are to be commended for that. But it does not help when people out there—and many of them are Maori—are judged as being racist purely because they belong to a certain group that wears a uniform on behalf of maintaining the security and the defence of us all in this country. I think that before this debate is over we will find out whether some people are capable of admitting they were wrong. Maybe in the future they will remember this: before one rushes to judgment one should get the facts. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I warmly support the comments of my colleague Winston Peters in his address to the House this afternoon and on behalf of the National Party I rise to support the third reading of this legislation the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. 
It has been interesting as we have gone through this debate that two parties have been highly critical of the events of recent weeks. It is quite clear that as I said in the House the other day all of us—all 121 members of Parliament—must support the police the process and the judiciary in this country because if we do not have faith in those then we have absolutely no faith in anything. I particularly side with Winston Peters’ comments and I thank him for those. 
This debate has the National Party’s support because we have been calling for some time for amendments to be made to this country’s counter-terrorism machinery to make it more workable. We watched colleagues in Australia deal with this issue more than 2 years ago and we have watched colleagues in Canada doing the same thing. The issues we are dealing with are quite separate from the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 because in simple terms we are trying to bring ourselves into line with commitments that New Zealand representatives have made to the United Nations resolution process and it is astonishing that it has taken us so long to get this legislation in place. I think the bill itself does not—as the Minister has told the House—extend in any substantive way the powers of the State to act against the threat of terrorism. Those powers are contained in the 2002 legislation and have nothing to do with the legislation that we are now debating and I hope will pass into law in the next day or two. 
The bill streamlines the machinery by which designations of terrorist entities are made and renewed. The current provisions are in many respects unworkable and also impractical. They provide a lengthy process for the designation of terrorist entities under UN Resolution 1267 whereas it is obvious that we should merely follow the lead that has been taken by the Security Council. As I have said earlier in this debate the Security Council is the one part of the United Nations that works effectively. 
With regard to the designations of New Zealand’s own initiatives under UN Resolution 1373 the current procedures treat the renewal of designations as matters that are capable of being dealt with through a judicial process according to the normal standard of proof in the courts. But the reality is that the process of making and renewing designations of terrorist entities must be a matter for the exercise of subjective judgment based on intelligence information. Having been involved in that area and certainly in interpreting intelligence throughout a good bit of my life I can say that those documents would not stand up in a court of law but what we are doing is filling ourselves in on a background and building our knowledge and understanding of events in order to make essentially subjective judgments. 
That material cannot leak into the public domain in any circumstances because if it did we would not get future access to that kind of material. The National Party accepts that the appropriate person the appropriate authority to make and renew designations under UN Resolution 1373 should be the Prime Minister of whatever party. The process in our community is to acknowledge the Prime Minister as the ultimate arbiter in this context. In New Zealand the Prime Minister is the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and is the elected official who is most fully and regularly briefed on security matters. 
We have some concerns about the way the process has worked under the original Act since it was passed in 2002. Clearly we are not alone in this because David Collins the Solicitor-General—and I quote from a press statement that I have just seen—was severely critical of the inadequacies of the legislation. He was referring to the 2002 base legislation. He said that it was “unnecessarily complex incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances” of the particular case. In an ideal world I would say that the smart thing to do is to put this legislation on ice while we go back and study the Solicitor-General’s report then sort this matter out properly because clearly people have concerns about the 2002 legislation. 
But we in this House have not had a chance to do that and the reality is that we are up against a deadline. We have to pass this legislation before 1 December because if we do not we will be the only country out of about 196 countries that has signed up to this legislation through the United Nations but has not put it into effect. As such we would be perceived to be the weak link in the chain and particularly a very weak link by our closer friends if not allies. 
Let me say that the select committee process went quite well. We had very good submissions from people who brought all manner of views to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Submitters said that they were really concerned about the bill because they think it will infringe upon civil liberties human rights and those sorts of things. But at the end of the day we have to maintain ourselves as a cohesive society that is working in a fair way and with processes that have integrity. 
 I am a person who supports the need for strong and effective counter-terrorism legislation. I have lived in places like the Middle East in Iran and in other countries—even Papua New Guinea where there has been a lot of what is effectively terrorist activity over a long period—and I think we have to maintain cohesion in this society by giving the executive and public servants the tools to do a really thorough job in this area to protect the interests of the majority of the community. 
I think we also have to have faith in our select committee process. The committee has worked very hard to scrutinise the submissions made to it and the reports of its advisers. In particular I thank ex-colleagues in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for doing a very good job in advising the committee. If we did not get this right there would be consequences and I think those consequences could be very very serious for our community. But members may recall that in the committee’s report back to the House the National Party took the unusual step of submitting a minority report to the House. It was an unusual step to take in the context that we were really supporting the bill but we did so for strong and good reasons. The original Act was passed in 2002 in the wake of the terrorist action in the United States. New Zealand met all its obligations under Resolution 1267 and duly designated as terrorist entities all 450 entities individuals or groups so designated by the Security Council but in relation to UN Resolution 1373 which is the resolution that relates to non-Taliban or non - al-Qaeda terrorist entities and individuals our track record simply did not stand up to scrutiny. We are putting that right in this process today. 
As I said Australia and Canada did this some years ago. Given our proximity to Australia—our closest neighbour and friend with virtually a common border between our two countries—we had a responsibility to our trans-Tasman neighbours to have done this a long time ago. The Australian Government has already classified groups like the Tamil Tigers the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade Hamas Hezbollah and other such agencies as terrorist entities in Australia. Clearly the Government of Australia would have done that only if it was seriously concerned about those people. Our community needs to be asking why our Government did not get on to this at a much earlier date. But New Zealand is now on the path to putting this right and the New Zealand National Party is totally supportive of the Government’s actions in this regard. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill has basically three main elements. The first is matters dealing with the financing of terrorism; the second is in relation to the possession of radioactive materials; and the third and perhaps the most important in the New Zealand context is the fact that designations will in future be carried out by the Prime Minister thereby avoiding the problem that this bill has to pass by 1 December to deal with in that a very large number of such designations will lapse at the end of this month. One of the reasons for the very large number of designations is that a lot of the groups designated appear under a very large number of different names in various parts of the world. Those who are followers of Monty Python will recognise the syndrome in that regard. There are also a number of minor matters in this bill. 
I think it is very good that we are debating this bill today and the principal piece of legislation the Terrorism Suppression Act because of the announcements made by the Solicitor-General at 4 o’clock this afternoon. There has been much hysterical huffing and puffing over recent weeks about the Terrorism Suppression Act. Indeed the key aspects of much of that huffing and puffing contained a strong element of contempt for the rule of law. We have heard demands from people that the Government should be telling the police what they should be doing in terms of their investigations the way in which they carry them out whether they carry them out and whether any charges should be laid. We have seen continual attacks on the police often on the basis of extraordinarily flimsy evidence and indeed contradictory evidence from those making the complaints in the public arena. 
We have seen calls for political control of the process of the consideration of the laying of charges. This afternoon I received a letter from a large number of people that told me that I should overrule the Solicitor-General if the Solicitor-General chose to lay charges. It strikes me as extraordinary that people who object to the Prime Minister designating as terrorist entities groups that have already been listed as such by the United Nations—it is not a kind of random list that the Prime Minister makes up as she or he goes along—should on the other hand turn round and say that a Cabinet Minister should overrule the Solicitor-General when it comes to issues of the rule of law and the laying of charges. That is political interference. Telling the police what to do is political interference. That is what happens in countries like Fiji and Pakistan. It is not what happens in countries like New Zealand. 
We have also seen many people including I am afraid some members of this House in effect casting judgment on matters in the absence of evidence that are properly the precinct of the legal system to consider and decide upon. This House does not try people and find them innocent or guilty. That is a matter for the courts. 
I want to refer to what the Solicitor-General actually said before there is a great deal of misinterpretation of his announcement which I am sure is about to occur within this House. He said and I quote: “Having considered in detail all of the available evidence I am very satisfied that the Police had a sufficient and proper basis for investigating the activities in question under the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Act. The Police have in my opinion also acted very properly in referring the evidence to my office so that I could make an assessment as to whether or not charges should be brought under the Terrorism Suppression Act.” He then deals with some issues that I will come back to in a minute. He goes on to say: “In summary the key reason why I am not prepared to authorise prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act is because I am of the view that at this stage there is insufficient evidence to establish to the very high standard required that a group or entity was planning or preparing to commit a terrorist act as that term is defined in the legislation.” 
 That is quite crucial. What the Solicitor-General is saying to us is that those people who claim that this Act is some kind of means by which the Government can suppress legitimate and peaceful protest or dissent were and are talking rubbish. The Act actually has a very high threshold before any kind of charge can be laid. Indeed the Solicitor-General points to the fact that there are problems with the Act that make it difficult to lay such charges in part because it deals with an international terrorist context. I will be taking seriously his suggestion of referring the Act to the Law Commission and will refer the Act to the Law Commission for its consideration in that regard. 
I think we need to note that the Solicitor-General also goes on to say: “Some may try to interpret my decision as a criticism of the Police. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my view the Commissioner of Police and his officers have acted entirely appropriately in referring the evidence to me. … I wish also to stress that the Police have successfully brought to an end what were very disturbing activities. That the Police did so without a single shot being fired injury or loss of life is a tremendous reflection on the professionalism and integrity of the New Zealand Police.” 
Some of the evidence that was relevant to what the Solicitor-General was considering will of course come out in the consideration of the charges under the Firearms Act. Some of the evidence will not come out under those considerations—that is evidence under interception warrants etc. which of course are not relevant to the Firearms Act charges. That evidence will never see the light of day. All I can say having read some of that evidence as Attorney-General and having been advised by the Solicitor-General is that I believe that what the Solicitor-General said is absolutely correct—the police had a reasonable basis on which to refer matters to the Solicitor-General. 
Let us not pretend that we are dealing with a brutal and repressive police force acting at the behest of the State and in an uncontrolled and unjustified fashion. That is not what the Solicitor-General has said. Anybody who claims that this statement is some kind of vindication of all those involved is misreading what the Solicitor-General said. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I have to say that I agree with a number of the comments already well put by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other speakers. 
I think some points worth making are that new provisions are required to ensure that terrorists listed under United Nations Resolution 1267 which deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban activities are automatically designated as terrorist entities under New Zealand law. I find it quite surprising that when the Parliament follows the United Nations which we are a part of and have been signed up to for a long time if it does not suit some sides of the House and some organisations outside the House then we get all sorts of criticism. Funnily enough when the Parliament decides not to follow the United Nations line in respect of something else the argument goes the other way. It always seems to come from the same side of the House. I think it is something that shows an entirely inconsistent nature and it is inconsistent with belonging to an organisation such as the United Nations. Of course no doubt they will make the same arguments in Opposition. 
This legislation is about the security of our country and I think we need to look at the way the law works in respect of charges that are wished to be brought under the terrorism suppression legislation. It is not unusual for a search warrant to be sought under the Summary Proceedings Act which is targeted at certain offences and crimes committed under a number of various other Acts and whether it be the Arms Act the Terrorism Suppression Act the Misuse of Drugs Act the Crimes Act or any other Act it needs to be stated on the application. The fact is that the search warrant is sought. It is the empowering document that allows the police to act in a certain way. Bearing in mind the evidence that the police appear to have had it is not surprising that they acted in a way to combat the most severe retaliation that was reasonably expected given what they knew for instance about what arms or restricted weapons were held. 
I find it ironic that although people have insisted that all these weapons were required for pig hunting nobody seems to have come up with an innocent use for a Molotov cocktail in spite of the fact it appears that a number of the charges to have come out of these executed search warrants relate to the possession of restricted and unlawful weapons which included Molotov cocktails. 
I also want to make the point that it is only 2 years since the police had a roadblock in the same area in the central North Island where they were searching for gang members. A school bus was searched and hiding under the seats on the bus were the gang members sought at the time trying to get through the roadblock. 
So I believe from what little I know—albeit that I am not privy to all of the circumstances involved at any one time—that the police have a mandate to act reasonably and to appear to have acted reasonably on the face of it. What happens of course is that once a search warrant has been executed and arrests have been made charges are brought people are held on bail or remanded in custody and that is that. But under this legislation it is required that no charges be brought under the terrorism suppression legislation until there is the authority of the Solicitor-General. We see that in other legislation too. It is not surprising. If we want to charge someone with perjury for instance we have to have the authority of the Solicitor-General before we can lay those charges. 
I guess most recently we have seen the charges brought in respect of allegations against a member of Parliament which needed to have the authority of the Solicitor-General before they could be laid before information could be laid before the court and later indictments presented. But what do we do in this situation? For instance if we find that charges under the Crimes Act or the Arms Act are upheld due to eyewitness evidence that weapons were held on a particular day at a particular time then charges could be laid under the relevant Act. If we then get the permission of the Solicitor-General to lay further charges some charges may be withdrawn and other charges preferred. That is just the way the law is done. 
What do we do when we find people who are a threat to society either a terrorist threat or just a criminal threat in relation to possession of unlawful weapons? Well they must be held on something. It will not be a situation whereby the police will allow these people to go about their business while the police seek further advice and lay charges at some time in the future by trying to find these people and deliver a summons upon them or by asking them nicely to turn up to court on any particular day. 
The fact is that the charges that the police believe were substantiated by items and evidence found in the execution of the search warrant present a serious threat to people who are moving in those circles—people who were in the bush or people who were just generally going about their lawful duty. As an average citizen of this country I was disturbed at some of the television footage I saw of the way that average New Zealanders were being approached on what appeared to be a public road. So charges are laid and people are remanded in custody. That is how the law operates and that is how it will continue to operate until it is changed. It is in this House that those changes are made if support is given for them. I believe that the police acted entirely appropriately. In fact the law demanded that they seek the permission of the Solicitor-General to lay further charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
I also note that the definition of a terrorist act states expressly that legitimate protest advocacy or dissent is not by itself a sufficient basis for implying intent to commit a terrorist act. What that means is that New Zealand’s long legacy of being an international advocate for lawful protests and for citizens’ rights not only within its own country but also around the world will continue. This legislation takes nothing away from that. 
The support of this legislation is reasonable given the society that we live in and given the international environment we live in too. We are finding now that as there is a global interest in various terrorist groups New Zealand is becoming more and more a focus for people transiting through to other countries or coming to New Zealand to take the heat off them. When we speak to the police we are finding that more and more at our borders these people are ingressing our country and during the period that they are staying within our borders they have the opportunity to progress or to elevate the activities they want to carry out—hopefully in someone else’s country. 
I believe that the statements by the Solicitor-General today have been encouraging towards the police and have supported that they acted appropriately. I believe that this is legislation we need because we are part of a peaceful United Nations and there are conventions that we need to abide by and adopting this legislation is in a timely way supporting the rule of law internationally. I look forward to supporting it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 There has been a great victory today. A great cloud has been lifted off the Tuhoe people and off people who are active in social environmental and peace causes throughout the nation who were fearful that they had been smeared by these raids and these charges being placed under the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
Of course this is not the end of the story. There is now an agreement and I welcome it by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to review the Terrorism Suppression Act. That is exactly what the Human Rights Commission called for at the select committee and exactly what I put in an amendment 2 days ago in this House and that was turned down by Michael Cullen and others. I am glad that at last we are having a review of that unjust Act. 
It is a disgrace that we are proceeding with a vote on this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill because if we are going to review the Act why make the original Act worse as this legislation will? Dr Cullen said that it is all about the rule of law. He said that the accused people—presumably people like members of the Green Party and the Maori Party—are somehow against the rule of law. 
The very reason the Green Party is against this bill and similar terrorism legislation including the Terrorism Suppression Act is that it undermines the rule of law. It does this in several ways. It undermines the rule of law by confusing our existing system of criminal law. Over many years we have established crimes of murder rape kidnapping property damage etc. each with their own maximum penalties. That is all swept aside if the offender is deemed to have a political or religious motive for such criminal activity. Exactly the same crimes if they are deemed to be committed under the Terrorism Suppression Act and as having a political motive are subject to a single maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 
As the Law Society said this terrorist labelling would “have the potential effect of greatly increasing the penalty imposed on persons who are convicted of committing a terrorist act where the underlying criminal act is relatively minor”. Some of the underlying criminal offences in the Terrorism Suppression Act are indeed minor. Someone does not need even to intend to hurt anyone or damage property. One of the actions that can theoretically lead to life imprisonment under this amending bill for committing a terrorist act is “seriously disrupting an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life”. 
Greenpeace suggested that at the very least this provision should be amended so that there had to be an intention to endanger human life otherwise some of the non-violent disruptive protests that Greenpeace itself occasionally engages in could be defined as terrorism. The select committee turned down Greenpeace’s suggested amendment as did Parliament when I moved a similar amendment during the Committee stage of the bill. 
Let us look at what one might call a lesser crime in the Terrorism Suppression Act—not the actual committing of a terrorist act but of participating in a terrorist group. That has a maximum sentence of 14 years whereas the exact parallel offence in the Crimes Act—participation in a criminal organisation—has a maximum sentence of 3 years. This means that if a person participates in a group campaigning for Maori land rights and that group has planned or done something criminal then he or she is up for 14 years inside. But if a person is in a criminal gang that shoots people or beats them up or terrorises a neighbourhood then his or her maximum penalty is 3 years. The extra penalty for terrorism charges is the extra penalty for having a political conscience of one type or another. 
It is ironic that in the same month in which we have wiped from the statute book the sedition laws that punish people for their anti-establishment views we are tightening up terrorism laws that provide an extra punishment for lawbreakers because of their anti-establishment political views. I think it is right to use the term “anti-establishment”. For example when farmers openly defied the law and introduced the calicivirus—and that could qualify as terrorism under the Terrorism Suppression Act; that is it involved in the words of the Act the “release of a disease-bearing organism”—no charges ensued because the Government sensed that the farming establishment was on the side of those who released the virus. But when the charges involve Tuhoe people quite vigorously asserting greater Tuhoe autonomy there is a much greater possibility of terrorism charges being laid—although of course in the end thankfully they have not been. 
Clearly there is a highly charged political context around the current charges with New Zealand First accusing the Tuhoe leaders and Maori Party MPs of promoting apartheid. That is why it is so wrong for political leaders—like the Prime Minister in the case of the Terrorism Suppression Act—to be designating terrorist groups which is why the Green Party is opposed to an amendment in this bill that means that the Prime Minister will not only do the original designating of terrorist groups but also review those same designations 3 years later taking away the review role that previously lay with the High Court. Any Prime Minister’s judgment is clouded not only by his or her own political views but by practical politics. 
If our Prime Minister were to designate any international body as being terrorist on the basis of three things—how many innocent civilians it had killed with explosives how many people it had kidnapped and held for years and how many people it had tortured—then under any objective consideration the first body they would designate as being terrorist is the United States Government. But because of the economic and political power of the Bush administration our Prime Minister is unlikely to do that—although she might prove me wrong. 
The next way that anti-terrorist legislation undermines the rule of law is that the charges often involve secret classified information that those who are accused are not allowed to see. Sometimes under the Act they will get a summary of the evidence and the accusations against them but this is not guaranteed. In the immigration field Ahmed Zaoui had great difficulty in clearing his name after secret accusations of involvement with terrorism were laid against him. It took him nearly 5 years of legal struggle to get the Security Intelligence Service to come clean on what it had on him so that he could prove his innocence which he did. 
Anti-terrorist laws also encourage excessive surveillance of legitimate political dissenters and protesters and a general overreach of police powers. We have seen both in the latest raids. The police went beyond their legal rights when they ordered the Tuhoe people out of their cars and asked them to stand by numbered cards and be photographed. There may also have been excessive surveillance involved in the lead-up to the case. There are indications that this may have been the case in the many raids on the homes of political activists who were not charged. The surveillance net may have covered them. 
It is concerning that many people are now worried about what they might say in their texts and on their phones or what they might write on their computers. It is disturbing that several computers were taken away in the raids—one from a visiting Swedish lecturer who was staying at the home of two Ecoshow organisers whose computers were also taken. 
New Zealand is not on its own here. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has just published a report called  
Stamping Out Rights 
 which shows that the police in virtually every Commonwealth country have overstepped the mark as they participate in the so-called war on terror—often seriously overstepping the mark. We saw a couple of days ago a police report on the shooting dead of the innocent Brazilian Mr de Menezes in the London Underground on the grounds that he might be a terrorist. 
Policing under terrorism laws is fraught with difficulty. If we had had these laws during the big civil disobedience protests in 1981 against the Springbok Tour then there could have been even more division bitterness and injustice than there was at the time. There is a much better way to go about things which is to have respect for political activists and not treat them as the enemy or as the breeding grounds of terrorism. 
People like me who have been involved in these movements for years know that they are made up in the overwhelming majority of very good people. If people step outside the bounds and go in the direction of violent or criminal activity then there are plenty of people to pull them back into order. If that has happened to some people in this case then there will be plenty of people who will counsel them. We do not need the heavy hand of the State. We do not need these repressive terrorism laws to achieve it and we do not need Prime Ministers prejudicing the evidence as Helen Clark did a couple of days ago or Michael Cullen did today by insinuating that there was serious evidence here that he will not disclose and that he says will never be disclosed. He should not prejudice those people’s future as well. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Over the past couple of days comments I made about this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill seem to have generated some heated debate from politicians both inside and outside of this House. I thought I would recap on those comments so that the House is absolutely crystal clear about what I actually said. Here it is: “I will not sit quietly by while State forces terrorise my people. If this requires of me that I speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Maori communities in this country then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this Chamber on television in newspapers and anywhere else I possibly can.” 
 I stand by those comments today in spite of all the personal abuse I have had from someone who called for and signed up to a code of conduct which states that “we will debate the issues raised and refrain from personal attacks” and who then twice in as many weeks has issued press releases abusing me as a person and insulting my position as a member of Parliament. I stand by those comments because they reflect the feelings within many Maori communities all around the country. I stand by those comments because they reflect the feelings of New Zealanders who are proud to stand up for their rights and to respect the right of all other New Zealanders to do so as well. I stand by those comments because neither I nor the Maori Party will allow our views to be silenced by those who think the only good Maori is a dead one. I stand by those comments because unless someone has changed the rules in the last couple of days—and I know that some of the petty little players in this House have been desperately climbing on to the “Let’s do whatever we can to shut this Harawira up and get some media for ourselves.” bandwagon—I have the right as an elected member of this House of Representatives as do the rest of my colleagues in the Maori Party to speak freely on any issue that affects this country and its citizens. 
So let us look at what this whole terrorism thing means. What exactly is terrorism and who are we talking about when we call people “terrorists”? People in this House say that the Taliban are terrorists. My question is: is that the Taliban that was funded by the Americans to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan or—as if there are two different groups—is that the Taliban that turned around and then said: “And now you Yankee warmongers can get out of here as well.”? And Saddam Hussein—is that the Saddam Hussein who was bankrolled by the Americans in the war against Iran or is that the Saddam Hussein who told the Americans to get out of his country? Or is it the terrorism of the United States Seventh Cavalry operating under a clear mandate from their masters in Washington in the 1870s to crush everything that stood in the way of land-hungry settlers and to round up hunt down and kill where necessary any natives who stood in their way? 
When we talk about the fight against terrorism I recall attending a conference in Canada last year the United Nations Expert Seminar on Treaties Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples where I was given the picture I have here of Geronimo and some of his warriors carrying guns with a caption at the bottom that reads: “Homeland Security—Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. I ask whether that is the kind of fight against terrorism that we are talking about here. Or is it the terrorism of those people who lied to the whole world about weapons of mass destruction which were never found and about the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein which was never proved so that those people could invade Iraq to get control of the oilfields? 
When a member of this House characterises terrorism as the importation of deadly diseases the murder of innocent civilians and the wholesale theft of a people’s lands and territories is he referring to the terrorism of the colonial invasion of Aotearoa? Because people would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to see those very terrorist activities in our own history. 
When we think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill all I ask is that we put aside the blinkers of red white and blue and be honest about the reality of terrorism in all its forms. The Maori Party is no apologist for the regimes of either the Taliban or Saddam Hussein but neither are we so blind as to vote for a bill clearly designed to punish those who would challenge injustice in Aotearoa. 
Nicky Hager author of  
The Hollow Men 
 has said that since the passing of the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 people taking part in ordinary protests have found they are being subjected to much heavier policing. He said that the police are now routinely removing computers charging people in a manner well out of proportion to the original activity and using far more Draconian measures against people exercising their legitimate right to protest. He even pointed out that protesters had been charged with wilful damage for writing in chalk on the footpath outside Marian Hobbs’ office—for Heaven’s sake! 
This country is faced with the terror of silence from those who would silence the voice of radical protest vocal dissent and genuine opposition and from those who would tell us: “Wait just wait! The police know what they are doing.” Yeah right! Then there are those of us who would sit silently by muttering about how those so-and-so’s deserved it but secretly terrified that our children might be the next ones to get picked up. I am reminded of those famous words from Pastor Martin Niemöller who said of the Nazi purges of the Second World War: “First they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak out for me.” 
So no we will not be terrorised into silence on this or on any other issue that so hugely impacts upon our people. And for all those who think that the Maori Party stands alone I urge them to listen to some of these testimonies: Archdeacon Hone Kaa along with the Anglican Church itself has criticised the authorities for their actions and said that “there is no excuse for women children and the elderly being subjected to terror”. The Rev. John Thrupp of the Presbyterian Church has spoken of the overwhelming hurt and sense of anger amongst the people of Ruatoki—innocent people being held at gunpoint children being frightened out of their wits by police with guns and kids being stranded by the police arresting their parents. There is Te Teira Davies a highly respected Ringatu minister who was arrested. For Heaven’s sake he was taken from the college where he works and questioned for daring to know Tame Iti. Mate you know people can call the Maori Party whatever they like but when the church starts criticising police action we know that something is wrong.  
 When members of this House criticise the Maori Party and the Green Party for standing against State terrorism I have to ask all of them in return whether they really think it is acceptable behaviour for the State to use armed and masked gunmen to blockade communities to smash into people’s homes to hold innocent people at gunpoint to frighten children with guns to arrest and hold people without bail and to suppress all information on those cases. Any freedom-loving New Zealander—Maori Pakeha Pasifika Asian or whoever—would be horrified by the call for us to simply sit back and say nothing about the overkill of the recent police terror raids and the denial of basic human rights to our fellow citizens. We are not blind we are not dumb we are not deaf and we will not be silenced. 
They say that denying legal rights to terrorism suspects is normal in dictatorships but in countries like Aotearoa with a history of political tolerance and non-violent protest it is a development that we must rage against with all our might. On 29 March this year I said in this House that the Maori Party would oppose the use of terror to impose one-eyed nationalistic misconceptions of religion and governance on any people whether committed in the name of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda or in the name of George Bush and the United States of America. Today I repeat that statement. The Maori Party will oppose terrorism in all its forms be it international terrorism or State terrorism and we will stand alongside our people whenever our lands our communities and our people are threatened. 
Me mihi atu au ki te iwi o Tuhoe tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
My greetings and thanks to the Tuhoe people and to us all 
.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It was very interesting to hear the previous speech by Hone Harawira and it makes me truly shudder with fear as to what sort of country I live in that we now have people in this House believing the sort of rhetoric they espouse. It also makes me wonder if the Maori Party is truly serious about some of the fears its members have expressed about what their children and the people within their communities have been exposed to through the actions of the police which have now been adjudged and determined to have been entirely appropriate what they will do inside those same households now. 
The honourable member Mr Harawira talks about the trauma of young children seeing firearms. Well we all know the realities. Many young Maori children live in homes all over this country where illegal firearms are a matter of course but of course every time one raises the issue of terrorism by gangs the very same member stands up and leaps to their defence. The very same member says we are terrorising the gangs by daring to pick on them. I did not see this member stand up and talk about— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have never talked about the State terrorising the gangs. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. That is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assurance. This member has been here for 2 years. In that time he has collected well over $220000 of taxpayers’ money because he is representing an understanding of the Standing Orders. He knows that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
RON MARK 
: My point of order Mr Speaker is that yesterday he did not like my speech so he chose a path of deliberately interrupting it with points of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order. 
RON MARK 
: He is trying it again and he is doing so on the back of a speech he gave about people denying others the freedom of speech. Could you please deal with this man Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Mark but I found it impossible to decide what the member was going to raise before he stood up and took a point of order. The minute I saw that it was not remotely like a point of order I discontinued it. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
This is the point. We seem to have one set of standards on one side of the House for those who want to be dissidents and activists and who want to give the nation their form of lawful protest. Mr Locke is a great example. Today we had a demonstration out in front of Parliament. People did not have the right to stand up and speak on the steps but because they are who they are—the great holy peacemakers of the nation—they got to break the rules. The security guards sat back and did nothing except advise them that they did not have permission to speak on the steps. Mr Locke’s answer to that was that common sense prevailed—that they were allowed to make their speeches and they were not pulled to account and thrown off the steps. 
 Imagine if Garth McVicar did the same thing in this House. Imagine if members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust turned up here without the right authorities and chose to exercise exactly the same course of action that these people did. Would we see Mr Locke standing up there and defending their right to break the rules to have their say? Not on your nelly! Because there are two standards from the Green Party and the Maori Party on issues such as this—there is one law for everybody else and there is another specific law for them. They argue that freedom of speech gives them the right to say whatever they like however they like whenever they like. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a point of misrepresentation. I would hold the same rights for Garth McVicar as for anyone else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sit down. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that but it is not a point of order. 
Keith Locke 
: When I was making my point of order Winston Peters interjected. You are supposed to hear these points of order in silence and I am still being intervened with on my point of order. I think you have got to take some action in this case. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes I did take action. I said to you that that was not a point of order and I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters was simply trying to assist me in coming to that decision. 
RON MARK 
: And that proves my point again. Mr Harawira says “we’re not thick”. Well excuse me hello! Is that $250000 of wasted tax money or what? It is not wasted just on one of them we have two behaving in the same way! I mean come along and talk to me about the waste of taxpayers’ money and the inability to deliver healthcare to children. We have blown a quarter of a million dollars on just two of them in 2 years. And it is not a case actually that they do not understand the Standing Orders they do not understand the laws of this land they do not understand the laws and the rules that pertain to this House how it is run and how it is operated. The fact of the matter is they do not want to because they believe that they are the moral beacons of this nation. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member should withdraw the remark that we do not understand the Standing Orders. We take offence at that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I will not accept that. I will not instruct Mr Mark to withdraw what he said. 
RON MARK 
: Excuse me I am just lost for words. How many times does this member have to assist me? 
We are talking about legislation that is designed to protect democracy to protect the citizens of this nation against people who would use extraordinary means to deny that privilege—extraordinary means. I used to have a little business and I had about 28 staff working for me. One of my staff members said to me: “Ron you’re always at work. Why do you do that? I arrive at work and you’re already here. I leave work you’re still here. I can come back late at night and you’re still here. Why do you do that?” I said: “Well it’s simple. I have a little philosophy: extraordinary results demand extraordinary effort.” I would apply the same philosophy to the issues we face in terms of security the threat to this nation and the issues that this bill attempts to deal with. 
The threats that we face internationally from terrorism are extraordinary and they require extraordinary legislation to empower our police our intelligence agencies and the judiciary to deal with those. We understand the threats that this legislation might bring and the threats are very real so we put in place extraordinary checks. And this debate that we have been watching played out in the media and the commentary that we have heard actually is quite astounding. The one thing that these people—these critics—have failed to recognise is that the legislation that was enacted by the police actually required that the police get authority from the Attorney-General before charges could be laid. That is extraordinary. 
What is even more extraordinary is that the Attorney-General decided not to exercise that power. He chose to expand it; to pass that role to the Solicitor-General a more independent body who is outside politics and outside the Government. Today we have his decision. And far from the accusations that have been made by the people on the left—who are seated on my right today—far from what they were asserting the Government has done everything it could to ensure that the right people the appropriate people adjudicated on this issue and made the right determination and thus they have. 
What are the extraordinary circumstances we are facing? I could say that what is extraordinary is having a member of this House a man who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of this land who has given his allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and the Crown—and I can understand that because Maori have a relationship specifically and personally with the Crown through the Treaty of Waitangi—who would want to undermine that relationship. Why would Maori ever seek to undermine that relationship? They might have their gripes with the Governments of the day but their relationship and association with the Crown is specific particular and personal. 
But not this member. He sees nothing wrong with standing up on national television on  
Native Affairs 
 and saying: “If they tried this sort of—expletive—” and the fact that he has to resort to that sort of language gives an indication of his intellectual powers—“here in New Zealand we’d be out in the streets with guns.” He did not say “they would be”. He did not say “some might be”. He said “we” implying himself did he not I say to Mr Hone Harawira. So what are we to deduce from that? 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
RON MARK 
: Here he goes again. Those are the words and they there on the website— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Have you a specific point of order Mr Harawira? 
Hone Harawira 
: It is about the mispronunciation of my name Mr Speaker. Could I ask him to pronounce my name properly? Is that appropriate? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That goes for all of us; yes. 
RON MARK 
: In that respect Mr Deputy Speaker I would like him to refer to me as Ron Mark as opposed to “Marks” and “Maaka”. That would be nice because that is my name. But never mind. 
I would say to that member—who again has just demonstrated exactly what I am saying—that it is one thing for people to espouse freedom of speech for themselves but it is another thing for them to defend and protect the freedom of speech of those who do not agree with them. Some people need to understand that. If we have a short overweight pot-bellied Maori with gelatine in his bum shaking it on TV saying one thing—well the public are quite right to dismiss the person lightly and say that the language of incitement he is using is of no great threat. They will say: “Look at him. Who could take him seriously?” 
But when a member of Parliament stands up and says something it is a completely different thing. That member of Parliament does not need to carry an AK-47. His words are his weapon and the power that he exercises through the written media and through television has a far greater impact on those who feel themselves disenfranchised in society or belittled or disempowered. His power is far greater than that of a short tubby man with gelatine in his bum. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation for all the right reasons. We thoroughly oppose those who would advocate for their own freedom to say what they want while denying the rest of us our freedom to say what we want. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I thank everybody who worked on the bill particularly those who took part in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee consideration. We have heard a lot of speeches from members who were not on the select committee. I particularly want to thank the select committee members and staff for the work that was done on the bill. 
I note that we had 35 submitters on the bill and that we heard 14 of those submitters. We took a great deal of notice. In fact the committee acted very very carefully on this legislation. We looked at the balance between protecting New Zealanders against terrorism and making sure New Zealanders are safe— 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.