Volume 644 Week 65 - Tuesday 18 December 2007 
Volume 644 Week 65 - Tuesday 18 December 2007 
[Volume:644;Page:14013] 
Tuesday 18 December 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appointments 
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am pleased to advise the House that pursuant to section 7 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed Mary Winifred Harris as the Clerk of the House of Representatives for a term commencing on 10 December 2007. [ 
Applause 
] 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Finance Bill—Prime Minister’s Comments 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her statement when asked how she expects well-intentioned honest ordinary New Zealanders to understand the Electoral Finance Bill that “One expects people to read it carefully and to consult lawyers”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes if they expect to spend big money like the member does on electioneering. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that what constitutes an electoral advertisement is so unclear and so highly debatable that groups opposed to Government policies are going to be told by their lawyers to shut up completely over the whole of the election year; and is that not exactly what the Government wanted all the way along to silence its critics? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No; and no. 
John Key 
: Why is it her Government’s policy that for someone like Tim Shadbolt to spend $300000 in January next year using the slogan “Bring down the Government” will constitute a corrupt practice in the law for which Mr Shadbolt could lose his mayoralty be sent to prison for up to 2 years and be fined up to $100000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that when Mayor Tim is more fully acquainted with the facts there will be no such need. 
John Key 
: Why will Tim Shadbolt not be subject to the law this Government is going to pass this afternoon which quite clearly says that if someone as a third party spends over $120000 in the electoral period using the slogan “Bring down the Government”—which the Electoral Commission has already indicated would mean the Labour Government—that person would be in breach of the law; and maybe the person who does not understand the law is not Tim Shadbolt but is actually the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would be advising people to follow the law not dodge it as he did with regard to the Exclusive Brethren. 
John Key 
: Well is that not exactly the point: if Mr Shadbolt follows the law he can spend $120000 and if he spends more than $120000 he will be subject to a fine of $40000 will potentially go to jail for 2 years and will lose his mayoralty; and is that because the Government cannot hack criticism any more? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The National Party managed to exceed the allowable limit last time and as far as I can see the Leader of the Opposition is not in jail. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister wants New Zealanders to have freedom of speech and if she is happy for people like Tim Shadbolt to run their cases in the court of public opinion why is she going to have legislation passed this afternoon that will limit Tim Shadbolt’s campaign to $120000 or less—and she should not shake her head because she knows that that is the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I know about the truth is that Tim Shadbolt can run as many issues as he likes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that any concerns held by the community about campaign finance law reform are best resolved by a wide-ranging open and primarily democratic process of review? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows it is the Government’s intention supported by the Greens and New Zealand First I understand and by United Future to have a review of campaign funding. 
John Key 
: Where has this country got to when a blind vendetta led by her Government sees somebody like Tim Shadbolt a man standing up for his community potentially being packed off to jail; and is that the reason this Government is increasingly becoming so unpopular that even its own supporters do not like it any more? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give the Mayor of Invercargill some advice he should please tell him that he can spend as much as he likes on issues advertising. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain then why Mr Shadbolt will not be in breach of the law if next year he spends in excess of $120000 on a campaign where his advertisements are headed with the slogan “Bring down the Government”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If Mayor Tim sticks to the issues he will be within the law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Member 
: Pay it back. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You can pay the GST back now. 
Hon Member 
: I did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No you did not and the Inland Revenue Department should be prosecuting you. The Inland Revenue Department should be prosecuting you because you have not paid it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated; I am on my feet. This cross-chat across the Chamber leads to disorder. Would the member please just ask his supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am very happy to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Do you support Tim Shadbolt? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have just said that that sort of behaviour leads to disorder. I will be asking members to leave the House if it happens again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which division of law covers the issue of free speech: the electoral law or the censorship copyright and defamation laws of this country; which of the two divisions are we talking about when we talk about free speech in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the electoral law talks about is paid speech. The National Party with its secret donors and trusts wants to be able to spend whatever it likes in order to buy an election as Mr Key tried to do last time with the Exclusive Brethren. 
Paediatric Oncology Service—Wellington Hospital 
2.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can he assure the House that a decision on the future of Wellington’s paediatric oncology service will be reached today and that the matter will not be subject to further time-wasting reviews? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I am pleased to inform the House that the management of the Canterbury District Health Board and the Capital and Coast District Health Board have today reached an agreement on the delivery of paediatric oncology services. This agreement will now go before the boards for formal ratification. The full announcement of details will be made at 4 o’clock today. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it true that the provision of other specialist services at Wellington such as paediatric neurology and paediatric surgery are also under review; if so when will these reviews be completed? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have no advice on that but I can say to the member and to the House that managers and clinicians from both boards believe that in this case one joint service will be better than two smaller units making better use of resources and expertise and that collaboration between the boards in setting up the new service has been positive and could offer a new way of working for all other small specialist services. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister believe that the majority of New Zealanders would prefer to have a $10 per week tax cut or fully functioning paediatric neurology oncology and other health services for children? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Most of the surveys I have seen and most of the personal conversations one has with people would indicate that the priority is for high-quality services such as health and education. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the event that the announcement this afternoon is for a single service located on the Christchurch campus what advice has he received about patients coming from the lower end of the North Island the period of travel time involved and the impact on their medication as they travel south for treatment in Christchurch? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot give the member that detail; I understand that it will be announced at 4 o’clock. But my impression from the reports I have had late in the afternoon is that there will be a service administered in Wellington. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would he agree that children who require such specialist services do not have the luxury of having time on their side and can he assure their families that treatment will be available immediately if not in Wellington then in Christchurch or Auckland? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The full details of timing will be given this afternoon at 4 o’clock—and I am not privy to them—and they have to be ratified between now and then by boards. But I can say that I know that the previous Minister and the current Minister have pressed very vigorously for this high-quality service. I expect that that will be the service that is implemented. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the Government increase funding for travel and accommodation for the parents and siblings of affected children who have to travel to other centres for treatment; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My experience in the health system is that where it is necessary for patients to travel to another district health board area for services that have been approved the travel is funded by the district health board. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Consequences of Overspending 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it the Government’s policy that any person who knowingly spends more than $120000 in an election year encouraging people not to vote for the Government should be liable for imprisonment of up to 2 years and a fine of up to $100000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Any person who knowingly breaks any law must be prepared to face the consequences. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether the Minister has addressed that question which was put down on notice. It is an important issue for the debate to be held later today for all the parties in this House. I suggest to you that that answer was a bit light because it could be an answer to any particular question about any particular law when the question was quite specific. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Government’s policy that any person who intends to spend over $12000 in an election year on publicity that could be construed as political advertising must register as a third party appoint a financial agent and meet a number of other requirements and if that person does not do that then he or she will also be liable for imprisonment of up to 2 years and a fine of $100000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if Southland interests want to continue their campaign of criticism of the Government policy for the funding of polytechs then they will be bound to register as a third party if they intend to run one more advertisement after 1 January because the threshold is in fact $12000 of spending? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If Southland and Mayor Tim wish to undertake advertising and stick with the issues none of this will apply to them any more than it would apply to their saying do not privatise accident compensation do not privatise the roads do not privatise our prisons do not privatise our schools—all of which are National Party policy. As long as they stick with the issues they are not covered. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that if the police suspect that Southland interests are going to spend over $12000 and are not registered as a third party then the police have powers under the Electoral Finance Bill to search the Invercargill City Council or Mr Shadbolt’s home to find evidence of whether they have broken the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not believe that Mayor Tim or his council would be so silly as to get themselves in that situation. They will stick with the issues. I suggest that the member should stop scaremongering. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister intend to read the bill or to advise the Prime Minister to read the bill where it defines a political advertisement as any form of words that encourages voters to vote for or against a party by reference to views positions or policies which would certainly include a campaign that refers to the Government and criticises its policy over funding polytechs thereby making Southland interests liable to up to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $100000 even if they are spending only $12000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Both the Prime Minister and I have read the bill. I can say to the member— 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s about time. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh “Mr Nasty”! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Be seated please! This is the last warning. I do not care whether you are on the front bench of either side of the House you will be asked to leave. Would the Minister please just stick to the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am very happy to. Both the Prime Minister and I have read the bill. I say to the member that the Electoral Commission will be charged with making decisions on whether publications by third parties fall into the definition of an election advertisement not Mr English and not me. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Government’s policy that the definition of an election advertisement is so wide and so uncertain and that the liabilities for breaking the law are so severe that they will have a chilling effect on criticism of the Government and it will take brave leadership such as that of Mayor Tim Shadbolt to run a campaign against the Government in an election year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the special feature of this law that suggests that in the 3 months out from an election the activity would be legal—and therefore within the electoral law of this country—and soundly placed but if it is in the 9 or 10 months before an election it is somehow wrongly placed; what is the special feature that gets it from one position which the National Party supports to one that it does not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is a simple matter of a large amount of money that the National Party intended to spend pretending that it would not have influenced the vote before the 3 months were up but would have influenced it after the 3 months. That is the nonsense we have had from the National Party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Just to get this clear is the Minister saying that if an activity was undertaken in say next September for a November election then it would be OK but under the National Party interpretation if it happened in April it would not be OK; what is the special feature about that which is so much a matter of angst in the Opposition ranks today? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question; it goes right to the heart of this debate. The answer is that the National Party had planned to spend a lot of money between January and September—and therefore not counting in terms of an election—but once it got to the magical 3 months it would spend in that period and say that was OK. Everyone knows that was a nonsense. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Notwithstanding which month the expenditure occurs in is it a fact that in 2008 such expenditure will attract GST and therefore must be paid? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We have explicitly put into the bill that the expenditure does incur GST. You see the National Party did not pay it and has not paid it but we have made sure that it cannot make the mistake next time. It is in the bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister of Justice—seeing as she occupies that most distinguished and important role—made submissions to the Minister of Revenue because clearly the head of the Inland Revenue Department is not enforcing the law? If GST is outstanding then legal action should have been taken against the National Party. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not made such representations but I suggest that maybe the member having raised the issue in front of the Minister of Revenue might like to take it up with him. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Settlement Progress 
4.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has been made on Treaty of Waitangi settlements? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Very good progress has been made. On Sunday an agreement in principle was signed with Waikato-Tainui relating to the tribe’s Waikato River claim. Last week an agreement was signed in principle with the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team to settle all outstanding historical claims of Taranaki Whanui (Wellington). The way in which we settle historical grievances in a peaceful and constructive way is something we should be proud of as a nation. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other recent progress has been made in settling Treaty of Waitangi claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have signed four agreements in principle in the last 6 months and we are due to sign another one this coming Saturday. Attempts are also being made to put together a comprehensive settlement to the central North Island forest claim. With each of these settlements we move forward looking to the future to consolidate our gains and take full advantage of our growing prosperity. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What formal negotiations took place with other Waikato River iwi who have significant rights to the Waikato River when the Crown was reaching agreement with Waikato-Tainui? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Waikato-Tainui negotiators led a process that covered all other iwi with claims to the Waikato River. Agreement was arrived at in terms of structures that involve those iwi at crucial levels of the proposals. One part of the river where Waikato-Tainui have pretty much exclusive claims is dealt with separately in the settlement but all those other iwi have been involved in the process in recent weeks. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister consider that those discussions are sufficient enough to protect the interests of other Waikato River iwi? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do. There has been very broad agreement involving a meeting that I was at as well. Of course if any residual issues remain they can be dealt with through the ongoing negotiations towards the deed of settlement and then in the process of the bill proceeding through the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of any concerns from any other Waikato River iwi that they have not been adequately consulted with and that their interests have not been protected in the agreement in principle; if so what would he consider they should do to address that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any iwi with remaining concerns certainly can approach myself directly as the Minister or the two lead negotiators for Waikato-Tainui Tuku Morgan and Lady RaihaMahuta. But I would suggest that one must not keep looking for some extremely small dissident group. One can find such groups anywhere whether in Pakeha or Maori and they cannot stand in the way of the vast majority consenting to an agreed solution. 
Environment Ministry—Curran Appointment 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When will the State Services Commission publicly release its investigation into the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 When the report is completed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen a draft of the report; if so does it detail evidence from the Hon David Parker and from the former Minister David Benson-Pope; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen a draft of the report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware of whether the State Services Commission has heard evidence from Heather Simpson or any other ministerial staff to determine the role of the Labour Government in the appointment of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it true that the Labour Government has required that this report is not released while the House is sitting and is determined to have this report released right under the eve of Christmas in order to avoid the sort of scrutiny that it should come under? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No and I quote back to the member his own comments he made on Radio Live on 5 December: “We expect a factual document to get right to the heart of it and I think we have got to give Mr Rennie and those who are putting the report together a bit of space.” That is what they have got. We have not seen the report. The Government has not received it and we have not had input into it in the way the member is implying. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does it concern the Minister that at the time I made my statements Mr Rennie had been on the job for quite some time and in fact had indicated that this would be a report that took perhaps 2 or 3 weeks but it is now well over that time and it therefore looks very much as though this Government has decided that this report will not see the light of day while there is likely to be severe scrutiny of it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The terms of reference for this inquiry were released by the State Services Commission just over 3 weeks ago on 23 November. I am told there are a number of people who needed to be interviewed and the State Services Commission wanted time to interview and complete the report— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You’re hiding it! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take great exception to that interjection from the member. It goes right to the heart of my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member asking for the member to withdraw that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly am asking him to withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Tertiary Education—Funding 
6.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What recent reports has he received on tertiary education funding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have seen many many reports. Last Friday the Tertiary Education Commission published its investment plans for eight universities 20 polytechs 38 industry training organisations three wananga and dozens of private training organisations. This marks a major change in the way tertiary education is funded in this country. Public comment to date has been very positive indeed although members will note that the Mayor of Invercargill is troubled. 
Lesley Soper 
: Why is Mayor Tim Shadbolt troubled and would the Minister care to comment on his meeting with representatives from the Southern Institute of Technology earlier today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Mayor Tim Shadbolt thinks that we are cutting the out of region provision of distance learning too hard when in fact we are investing to about the same extent next year as we were last year. Furthermore the Tertiary Education Commission has decided to increase provision—listen to that—in Southland by 12 percent. That decision is not covered in the media and is not to be found on the airwaves but everyone seems to think it is a good thing. As for the meeting with those from the Southern Institute of Technology I think they would say it was a good one and an honest one. However honest differences remain and I see we need to build more trust between the Government and the Southern Institute of Technology than exists at present to better resolve issues and we will do that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is rebel Cabinet Minister Damien O’Connor going to be punished for contradicting Government policy when he told the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that provincial polytechs should be able to offer courses outside their regions and why has the Minister punished four South Island polytechs serving rural areas—the Southern Institute of Technology Tai Poutini Polytechnic Aoraki Polytechnic and Telford Rural Polytechnic—when all have offered quality relevance innovation and value for money? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Changes for each of the polytechs have been happily negotiated; they are happy about them. Aoraki Polytechnic says it is happy. Telford Rural Polytechnic says it is happy. The Southern Institute of Technology is not happy because we reduced its out of region provision by more than it had anticipated. We are in discussion differences remain and it is really important that we get a better idea of one another’s point of view. National’s Southland MPs keep putting out press statements saying they are on to it but I have yet to hear from either of them—not one of them. Neither of them has rung me written to me or been in touch with the Tertiary Education Commission. They have not done anything except put out press statements. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the  
Southland Times 
 article that states: “… Lesley Soper has accused Southern Institute of Technology chief executive Penny Simmonds of ‘game-playing’ …”. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the Tertiary Education Commission’s report of 14 December demonstrating that five rural polytechs are losing money. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the latest  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in which Damien O’Connor contradicts his own Government’s tertiary education policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Eric Roy 
: I seek leave to table 28 letters I have received from students who are gravely concerned about the restrictions of the— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave to table a copy of Mayor Tim’s most famous book which adequately sums up this entire issue. 
Document not tabled. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes; much more so than I would have had when the department was underfunded and in crisis under the former National Government. Escapes are down to one-sixth of what they were under National. Drug taking has more than halved and effective action has been taken to secure prisons provide effective programmes and expand employment—to name just a few improvements. 
Simon Power 
: Why was it that trainee prison guards were able to twig that one of the other trainees had served jail time because she “knew a bit too much about prison” yet the Minister’s department had no idea of that at a time when there is a year-long inquiry into corruption amongst prison staff at Rimutaka Prison that has already seen 12 officers suspended—and by the way when is the report on that inquiry coming? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I guess one of the ironies of life is that the newspaper that ran that story had employed a journalist for a long time and then subsequently found out he had been making up stories rather than doing interviews. Look it is a sad fact of life that some people are very dishonest. That woman was dishonest. She changed her name and she did not reveal as she was required to her criminal convictions. That matter was drawn to the attention of the Department of Corrections which sacked the woman before she set foot back within a prison again. That could have happened to any Government department that follows the same lines as the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections behaved absolutely appropriately. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What progress has been made in reducing the level of serious assaults in prisons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was surprised to see a beat-up on Television One on Saturday night on prison assaults when the facts as given to the television channel were that serious assaults are down by 69 percent on the rate that occurred a decade ago and that New Zealand prisons have one of the best records in the world notwithstanding the fact of course that the people we put in prison are often dangerous violent offenders—that is why they are there. Let me make one last comment. The corrections department is now recording every assault however minor it is and even if it is alleged with the help of 3000 closed-circuit television cameras that have been put into prisons since 2001. So the department now knows exactly what is happening within the prisons. 
Simon Power 
: Why has it taken a coroner’s hearing for corrections to reveal that it failed to pass on to the Parole Board genuine information that offending by Graeme Burton was occurring in prison and that his probation officer was overloaded with too many high-risk offenders for one person to manage and for the department to admit despite previous denials from Barry Matthews that had it not lost a week then Karl Kuchenbecker may still be alive—or does the Minister disagree with Paul Kuchenbecker’s reported comments in the weekend’s  
Dominion Post 
 that they “might [as well] have just pulled the trigger themselves.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I acknowledge that serious faults in both the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police led to Mr Kuchenbecker’s death. I think that it is absolutely unfair to say that was a matter of intent on the part of the department. A bad mistake was made. But if the member wants to worry about Mr Burton I will tell him Paremoremo prison’s security was so bad under the former National Government that Graeme Burton was one of the many prisoners who escaped from that prison. Nowadays nobody escapes from it. 
Simon Power 
: What does he think of the former Minister of Justice who passed legislation through this House that allowed offenders to be paroled after serving only one-third of their sentences which has meant that Peter McNamara will be freed after serving just over 2 years of a 7-year sentence even though the Parole Board report indicates he has shown no remorse and continues to maintain that he is innocent? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I think of the former Minister of Justice is that there were a great many things that were extraordinarily beneficial in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. For example somebody like Burton—to use that example again—would once have been given 7 years’ and then 10 years’ imprisonment. He is now serving for the whole of his natural life as indeed William Bell is. I think the former Minister made a very wise decision when saying that safety needed to be the paramount consideration because what happened under the National Government was that even if a prisoner was regarded as extraordinarily dangerous the prison system was compelled to release that person at two-thirds of his or her sentence regardless of the risk of reoffending. That risk is now the paramount consideration. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Is the Minister aware of evidence of cellphones continuing to be smuggled into prisons and of their misuse; if so what is being done to address that issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Cellphones have been a serious problem. In fact the overall use of telephones has been associated with the commission or organisation of crimes from within prison. Not only has the prison system cracked down on contraband—I think that over the last 3 or 4 years it has probably quadrupled the amount of confiscated contraband—but also it is now bringing in a cellphone jamming system that will be progressively implemented in every prison in the country which will prevent that practice happening. Again that is something that never happened under a National Government. 
Simon Power 
: Why did the Minister claim in the House last week that the current prison muster of 7828 is “practically identical” and “tracking very close to those predicted” for December when the Ministry of Justice has advised that it is actually 214 above the level forecast? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have news for the member: not only is the prison muster tracking the level that was forecast very closely but it is now actually below the level forecast. The member is absolutely wrong in what he is saying and he needs to put up the evidence instead of making opportunistic claims that very rarely ever see the light of day in terms of the evidence needed to back them up. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Ministerial Intervention 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What was the “direct ministerial intervention” that the then chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board sought to ensure did not arise again as referred to in her letter to the Minister of 14 June 2007? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: The letter that the member is referring to and does not quote fully from the chair of Capital and Coast District Health Board to the Minister of Health states: “I am very appreciative of your decision”—that is the point that the member did not quote—“but at the same time determined to take steps to ensure that the need to seek direct ministerial intervention does not arise again.” The chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board was referring to support of its projected deficit which at that time was around $11 million for 2007-08 and appears to be thanking the Minister and the Government for their help. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why was the Government prepared 6 months ago to act to approve a blowout in the Capital and Coast District Health Board deficit but was not prepared to act to fix the problems at the district health board? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The chair at the time of writing that letter did not wish to seek additional deficit support but the Minister signalled that if necessary further deficit support would be provided. The Government has acted to support the district health board with a review of clinical governance and the implementation of the recommendations arising from that review. The Ministry of Health has commissioned an independent review of the district health board’s financial systems. Ministry of Health officials are part of the steering group for the regional clinical services and as everyone is well aware the Government has added additional support to the new board a new chair a Crown monitor deficit support as needed and assistance from the Ministry of Health. That I dare say is more support than the previous National Government ever gave in its whole term of office. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Were any other Ministers involved in the approval to extend the deficit? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not have any advice on that but normally speaking in these matters the Minister of Finance would of course be consulted. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: As the Minister has now given the Capital and Coast District Health Board’s new board 4 months to fix the problems at Wellington Hospital what are the benchmarks that he will measure the new performance of the board against? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not have the details in front of me but if the member wants to have that information I am perfectly happy to see that he gets the details. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Is it likely that Mr Hodgson was too busy acting illegally by intervening in aged-care negotiations in a manner described by the judge of the judicial review as “wrecking the ship” and that his priority was to attempt to force unionisation on the aged-care workforce rather than spending time on the woes of the Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is interesting that a party that claims that it will represent all New Zealanders is actually making a statement that it is illegal in some way to try to assist among the lowest-paid workers in the community. This Government is always proud to do that and it is interesting that the National Party is staking itself out in a position of opposition to that kind of action. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the declaration of the High Court that Mr Hodgson acted unlawfully in forcing unionism on aged-care workers. 
Document not tabled. 
Early Childhood Education—New Centres 
9.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many early childhood education centres have opened this year? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that 132 early childhood centres have been licensed this year. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why did the Prime Minister officially open the Jump and Jive centre in Manukau in March this year in a flourish of staged publicity only to have it still closed today because of air pollution concerns that cannot be substantiated? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Our Prime Minister is a very regular visitor to early childhood centres and schools. This year for example the Prime Minister has visited over 40 schools or early childhood centres including opening Whangamata’s free kindy in June Mount Albert kindy’s new playground centre in September and the Cambridge early learning centre in November. We are very fortunate to have a Prime Minister who is so interested in education. 
Paula Bennett 
: What are the regulations around air pollution standards for early childhood centres and why is Jump and Jive not open when it has had an independent report done that states that it is all clear? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: All early childhood centres are required to have a health clearance. The Jump and Jive childcare centre which the member refers to has undergone that. There were concerns about air quality. The location of that particular centre on an intersection has raised those concerns but I am pleased to tell the member that the ministry will be meeting with that centre tomorrow to discuss a health report that has just been done. 
Dianne Yates 
: What support is the Labour-led Government making available this year to increase access to early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We are doing a great deal. We are providing $16 million this year to build new and expanded community-based early childhood services. We have so far this year allocated $9.6 million to create an additional 385 places. In the next few weeks I will be announcing further grants across the country for more spaces in our very active programme of creating early childhood education for Kiwi kids. And of course we have our very popular and effective 20 free hours policy which all 3 and 4-year-olds in New Zealand can access. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister tell the House what effects upon the early childhood participation rates of 3 and 4-year-olds the implementation of the 20 free hours policy has had at this point in time? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am delighted to do so. Over 77000 children and their families are accessing the 20 free hours—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear. I will have to ask for the answer to heard in silence. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: All kindergartens are now offering this service. Forty-five kohanga reo have now opted into the free early childhood education scheme as well. Eighty-three percent of all 3 and 4-year olds enrolled in early childhood education are accessing the 20 free hours. This is a great policy benefiting thousands of Kiwi families. Of course the member who asked me a question earlier Paula Bennett said on Radio New Zealand National on 24 June that the National Party would get rid of the 20 free hours policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: Did the Prime Minister insist that she would open the Jump and Jive childcare centre on 16 March only if stunt children were bussed in for her photo opportunity? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is from the member who would abolish the 20 free hours policy! I remind the House again that our very busy Prime Minister has visited over 40 early childhood centres and schools this year. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The entire ACT caucus is sitting here quietly and we would just love to hear the answer to that question. We could not hear a thing and we want to know about the stunt children. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. I could hear the answer that time. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated Mr Hide. The member who is about to ask a question unfortunately has an extraordinarily loud voice which does make it very difficult on occasions for others to hear. If members would please get themselves under control I would ask Paula Bennett to ask the question please. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect the test is not whether you can hear the answer— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well it is partially Mr Hide. Please sit down. Would the Minister please in summary address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The only stunt being pulled is the silly question from the member. The Prime Minister was responding to a request from a private early childhood provider to open its centre. All arrangements to do with that were made by the owners of the early childhood centre. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is not unreasonable that the Minister does answer this question and he is avoiding it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee but I think that on this occasion he did actually address the question. He did address the question.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect Madam Speaker this childcare centre is not open because the ministry will not allow it to be. So the question relates to what happened on the day it was opened by the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee. Please be seated. Members are not always satisfied with the answers given by Ministers. The Standing Orders do not require them to be so. On this occasion the Minister did actually address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member or it may not have been the answer the member wanted but the Minister did address it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can he confirm that the Government used Jump and Jive childcare centre as a photo opportunity for its leader even busing in stunt kids to try to make the photos look good but will do nothing to help the centre which has been closed for 9 months despite having met all the regulations? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I cannot. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table a photo of those stunt children on the opening day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a transcript from Radio New Zealand National on 24 June 2007 which states that the National Party’s early childhood spokesperson Paula Bennett— 
Document not tabled. 
Family Violence—Campaign for Action Programme 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding the Government’s Campaign for Action on Family Violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen reports that say that the campaign has a lot of New Zealanders thinking talking and acting against family violence. Of the 900 people surveyed 87 percent recalled the campaign and of those 94 percent agreed with the campaign message. Over half had discussed the ads with someone and one in five reported taking some direct action as a result. Just 3 months since the launch of the campaign individuals and communities across our country are coming together to say that family violence is not OK. 
Darien Fenton 
: What additional investment has the Government made to support services that prevent and reduce the impact of family violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government has invested heavily in child and family services to ensure that all those who are affected by family violence are supported to rebuild their lives. Additional funding just this year includes a $5 million campaign response fund to support family violence services that are experiencing a higher demand as a result of the campaign over $20 million to boost the ability of community organisations to deliver those services and over $11 million to enhance the health sector response to family violence. Ongoing investment is a key priority and we will continue to work with the sector to ensure that needs are met. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that it is ironic that the excellent advertisements being screened on television as part of the Government’s anti-violence campaign are being interspersed around television programmes that are literally packed full of violence—up to 18 episodes of violence an hour in some programmes—and given the overwhelming evidence that high levels of violence on television increase the culture of violence why will the Government not take action to reduce the amount of violence on television as part of its anti-violence campaign? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think it is important for people to differentiate between violence that is part of a news programme that reflects reality and violence that is part of a drama or other situation. We all must get clear that any real violence particularly that inside a family is not OK. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Comparative Statistics 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: How does the expected level of greenhouse gas emissions including those from deforestation for this year compare with net emissions in 1999 when Labour took office and the Kyoto base year of 1990? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 A spike in deforestation of  
Pinus radiata 
 is expected over the Christmas period. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has made his point but he should address the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I know it is Christmas but we will now have the supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister think it is a joke that New Zealand’s net emissions have gone up 12 million tonnes over the last 4 years and that New Zealand got a near-bottom ranking in the climate change index report issued at the United Nations conference in Bali; and how is that consistent with his Government claiming that it is to be a world leader on climate change and that somehow we are on track to carbon neutrality—does this graph I am holding look as if we are on track to carbon neutrality? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I confidently expect that deforestation will decrease very significantly next year. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can the Minister please indicate to the House what the Labour-led Government is doing to reduce emissions including those from deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Labour-led Government has of course introduced an emissions trading scheme which every party but ACT has supported in its first reading. Of course the first sector to enter the emissions trading scheme will be forestry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why is it that for every year since records began in 1951 New Zealand planted more trees than we felled but in 2004 2005 and 2006 we lost 3 million trees each year and this year we are projected to lose an expected 6 million trees; and with this appalling record at home how can New Zealand have any credibility in international negotiations when trying to persuade developing countries to stop deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Despite the deforestation the member refers to the total number of hectares in forestry in New Zealand has increased. When we compare 1999 with now we see that the number of hectares in forestry is higher. Further as I said previously deforestation will decrease substantially next year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it that not only is Australia delivering higher incomes to its citizens but also its net emissions from 1990 are 4 percent and it is on track to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations whereas in New Zealand net emissions are 23 percent over their 1990 levels and every official agrees that we will not be able to meet those Kyoto Protocol targets? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than New Zealand’s except in respect of deforestation. The Australian Federal Government has been able to take advantage of some very severe rules against deforestation in Queensland. I repeat what I said earlier which is that deforestation emissions from New Zealand will decrease substantially next year. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it correct that Australia’s prosperity has been largely built on growing coal and gas exports and that under the Kyoto Protocol the liability of exports lies with the countries importing the coal and gas not with Australia whereas with New Zealand and our exports such as dairy the liability obviously lies with New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can indeed confirm that. The very large amounts of emissions that are caused by Australian exports of coal and gas are not counted by Australia in its Kyoto Protocol balance; our emissions from increasing agriculture are. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To the Minister— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why doesn’t the member stick up for New Zealand for once instead of trying to knock it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I just want some basic answers from a Government that has failed. They are a bunch of failures across there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. We will have this question and answer in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept the advice of officials that there is no realistic way that New Zealand can now get emissions back to 1990 levels; if so can he state how New Zealand will meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol noting that it comes into effect in just 14 days’ time? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have said previously to this House the current estimate prior to emissions trading of our deficit during the first commitment period is 45 million tonnes. We expect as a consequence of the emissions trading and other proposals we have brought into effect this year that that deficit will decrease to a tonnage in the high 20 millions or early 30 millions - plus. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So how will you do that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I have warned members so many times and the courtesy was given to that member—no one interrupted when he was asking his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He still hasn’t answered it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister can continue answering his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of that balance of 25 to 30 million tonnes New Zealand will take responsibility for those emissions by purchasing emission reductions using Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister’s reply to Dr Cullen’s question about coal exports not rather inconsistent with New Zealand’s position whereby our coal exports for which other countries have to take responsibility are increasing all the time and the Government is giving a subsidy to the coal industry by not requiring its coal seam methane emissions to come into the emissions trading scheme ever despite the fact that under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand is accountable for those coal seam methane emissions; and will the Minister reconsider that part of the emissions trading system? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the first part of the member’s question it is of course necessary to have a global agreement in respect of emissions reduction for it to be effective. Some of our coal exports go to Japan and it takes responsibility for the emissions that result. Increasingly in the future other countries will also be taking responsibility for their emissions from burning coal including the coal that they import from New Zealand. In respect of the question about methane seam gas in coalfields that is an issue I am willing to look at again. I would say that the preliminary advice I have had on that since the member’s questions to me outside the House is that the quantity of coal seam methane emissions is very low and that the cost of measuring might exceed the environmental benefit. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Deaths of Hawke’s Bay Patients 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: On what date did he first learn of any of the deaths of the three Hawke’s Bay District Health Board patients who died in Hawke’s Bay Hospital while on Wellington Hospital’s waiting list for heart surgery as reported on the front page of the  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 newspaper on 8 December 2007 and what action if any did he take? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I am advised that the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board indicated in a telephone conversation with the Minister on 13 November that the chair held information relating to deaths in Hawke’s Bay. The Minister indicated this to his officials on the same day. The officials began immediately following up with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. On Monday 19 November both the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and the Capital and Coast District Health Board provided written reports to the Ministry of Health that indicated that actions were already in place to increase access to cardiothoracic surgery at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has the Minister’s response to these tragic deaths been to attack me for not passing on details when there is a mandatory reporting requirement for any death of a person on a waiting list? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As far as I am aware the member was claiming publicly to have information that would have been of assistance to officials in any investigation into these matters. As I said to her the last time she asked this question she actually then instigated an Official Information Act request to the hospital board that she claimed she had information on in the first place. That seemed to be entirely inconsistent and not very responsible for a member of this Parliament. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the state of the health system so poor that it takes an Opposition MP and a  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 journalist Kate Newton to bring such serious failures at Capital and Coast District Health Board to light because the Minister’s approach is to cover up and to attack those who are exposing the truth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think it is irresponsible of any member of this House to define a hospital to describe a hospital in the New Zealand health system as a “killer hospital”; that is what I think is irresponsible. The Minister acted immediately. There was no delay in that. The reports were made back to the Ministry of Health. That is on the public record. The plans that were made by the Capital and Coast District Health Board have been implemented and more operations are actually being delivered. I must say as a New Zealander that I am proud of the hospital system in this country. My experience and the experience of thousands of my constituents who have gone through it have been universally good. We can expect incidents in our hospitals from time to time—of course we can—but by and large we have an excellent hospital system and we should be proud of it. 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 369 and Speaker’s rulings 140/4-6. This deals with the issue of ministerial delegations. It has now been some 6 weeks since the ministerial reshuffle yet there is still no official delegation list laid on the Table of the House. Under the Standing Orders we are required to ask questions of Ministers according to their delegations. Speaker’s ruling 140/5 in particular instructs that the delegations should be laid on the Table “at once”. Six weeks later hardly seems to be “at once”. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously I do not have the data before me and clearly we have finished question time for the year but I give an undertaking to the House that that letter will be available to be tabled at the start of next year so that it will be available for question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hope that satisfies the member. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of governance changes at Capital and Coast District Health Board. I have also received a similar application from Heather Roy. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate. There must be an element of urgency whereby the matter must take precedence over other business. The announcement was made on 13 December 2007 by the Minister of Health and the Leader of the House informed the House of this by way of a ministerial statement. Both Mr Ryall and Ms Roy took the opportunity to debate that matter in the House at the time. 
The Minister has made governance changes but the board is still in place. The board has been given further time to work through the issues. Those issues can be considered by the House in a number of ways in particular through the financial review process. The financial review is currently before the Health Committee and when the committee reports back the issues may be considered by the House in the financial review debate. Both applications are therefore declined. 
Electoral Finance Bill 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Electoral Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Finance Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation has been contentious with its passage marked by acrimonious debate and a campaign of misinformation. A major newspaper the  
New Zealand Herald 
 devoted almost a month to attacking the legislation and the Government in a campaign the like of which has not been seen since a Labour Government legislated to stop tobacco advertising. One cannot help but wonder whether the motives for the current campaign are not very similar to the last one. 
Much has been said and written about the legislation. A letter to the editor in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post  
summed it up for many people when it said: “Democracy’s not one dollar one vote”. An article in last week’s  
Otago Daily Times 
 also made some relevant points: “As much as we like to imagine that freedom of speech is an absolute it isn’t. There are several laws that proscribe it.” The article went on to say that a leading opponent of the legislation believed that an ideal democracy would let money be free to talk whenever and however loud it likes. The article stated further that the truth was that this man has “bags of money and no hesitation in using any amount of it to try to influence the course of our future democracy.” Freedom of speech and the freedom to buy speech are not the same things. 
This legislation demonstrates the Government’s commitment to democratic and transparent elections. The Justice and Electoral Committee the Government and the Parliament during the Committee stage listened to the concerns about the Electoral Finance Bill and made a number of changes that improve the legislation considerably. This legislation is about creating a fair transparent electoral system that puts all parties on a level playing field with clearly defined rules and safeguards to protect the electoral system from abuse. We do not want to see the Americanisation of our electoral system. This legislation does not restrict free speech; it simply restricts the right to purchase speech through advertising. This is being done to safeguard our democracy by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in politics. That is what a level playing field means and the Government believes that most New Zealanders understand and support this principle. The legislation makes changes that will help to bring New Zealand in line with other comparable democracies such as Canada and the United Kingdom. These reforms are important and are fair and transparent for our elections and that is fundamental to our democracy. 
This legislation has been debated extensively. The public engaged with it through the select committee process and the committee sent the summary of its recommendations to the submitters. That was a suggestion made by the Human Rights Commission about further public consultation. Members of this House have also made important contributions to the discussions. During the Committee of the whole House the Government made a number of clarifications and amendments to the legislation both to improve its workability and in response to matters raised following the select committee report. We have worked with the Chief Electoral Office the Electoral Commission the Law Commission and the Crown Law Office to make this legislation work. There has been favourable feedback from many submitters who had concerns with the bill as it was introduced. 
In addition the Government carefully considered the changes proposed by Mr Christopher Finlayson in his Supplementary Order Papers. I thank the member for his considered proposals for amendments—some of which have been incorporated into the legislation. The most significant clarifications and amendments proposed by the Government include narrowing the definition of “published” amending the cut-off date for listing as a third party ensuring full disclosure when donations are made by trusts and creating a mechanism for indexing expenditure limits. I will talk more about these in a moment. 
One area received attention during the final stages of this debate—that is the meaning of the phrase about an MP acting “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament”. I realise from the debate that the view I expressed in my second reading speech about the interpretation of that phrase was too narrow. Although acting in our capacity as an MP clearly includes participation in the business of the House and electorate and other representational duties work in our capacity as members of the Executive and other party spokespeople it clearly also includes the provision of information and critical analysis to the electorate on issues policy options and services. This is clearly not a strict definition and that would be undesirable. However the lack of a strict definition does not mean there is not other guidance. MPs’ behaviour is also governed by the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Act 2007 and the Speaker’s directions and determinations. 
Narrowing the definition of “publish” particularly by removing the part of the definition that would have encompassed advertisements that were brought “to the notice of the public in any other manner” has helped to remove many concerns. The amendment makes it clear that the definition captures only advertisements that are distributed to the general public not door-knocking or speeches at public meetings and so on. In addition to these changes the select committee ensured that the definition of an election advertisement does not affect the issues-based related advocacy that non-governmental organisations carry out. Alongside this amendment a new and important change made during the debate has been a common-sense clarification that when a suspected offence is inconsequential and there is no public interest in doing so the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office have the discretion not to report the matter to the police. 
A third substantive change to the legislation is the cut-off date by which a third party can list with the Electoral Commission. It will be a fixed date. Submitters including the Human Rights Commission were concerned that the period during which third parties were unable to list as a third party was too long and therefore created a restriction on the freedom of expression. The bill as introduced and reported back from the select committee had writ day as the day after which listing was prohibited—around 5 or 7 weeks before an election. This has been changed to 21 days before an election. The Human Rights Commission has said it is now largely happy with the legislation. The purpose of this change is to ensure that there is a balance between the date from which all participants in an election are known and the ability for people or groups to respond to issues that arise close to an election. 
Another change to the legislation during the last stages is a new clause that will ensure that there is full disclosure when donations are received from secret trusts. The new clause ensures that a chain of trusts cannot be used to circumvent the legislation. If the recipient of the donation cannot identify the contributors of a trust donation when the contribution is over $1000 the whole donation will be sent back to the donors either for them to remove the contribution or to identify the contributors. Ultimately greater transparency about the source of political funding will lead to increased public confidence in our democracy. 
There are a number of other changes including an indexation mechanism whereby political party candidate or third-party expenditure limits will be increased by the rate of inflation. This will occur every 3 years by Order in Council and will come into force on 1 October in the year before a Parliament is due to expire. In the departmental report on the legislation the Electoral Commission advised the Justice and Electoral Committee to adopt a proposal like this in relation to the election expenditure. The amendments I put forward did not index the donation thresholds in the legislation but this was not something that the royal commission or the Electoral Commissioner recommended. 
This legislation does not restrict free speech; it simply restricts the rights to purchase speech through advertising. This has been done to safeguard our democracy by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in politics. We want to protect the ability of all New Zealanders to participate in democracy. We must ensure that those with limited resources can realistically compete with those who have very deep pockets. I commend this legislation to the House. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 “If you’re in favour of free speech then you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for the views you despise. Otherwise you’re not in favour of free speech.” They are not the words of a random right-winger. They are not the words of a former treasurer of the ACT party. They are not the words of the media for whom Helen Clark no longer has any respect because according to her they are too young to understand history. They are the words of Noam Chomsky a man who is not from the left but from the far left. He is somebody with whom Helen Clark probably used to agree before she totally lost all objectivity. 
Today Helen Clark against the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders is passing legislation that threatens our democracy. Years and years of bipartisan support of electoral reform will be sacrificed for one reason and one reason alone: so that Helen Clark can try to cling on to power. I say her actions cannot go unrecorded. They threaten the rights of New Zealanders to participate in elections while at exactly the same time extending the rights of those in a political party. This law is not designed to strengthen our democracy. It is deliberately designed by Helen Clark to weaken our democracy. 
In much of New Zealand’s history we have enjoyed a full democracy—a democracy that has seen universal suffrage where free and fair elections are held where there is a freedom of association and where there is freedom of speech. One of the key planks of our democracy is the freedom to participate—to speak out when one is in agreement with the Government and to speak out with abhorrence to the Government to speak out when one agrees with the Opposition and to speak out with abhorrence to the Opposition. It is the freedom to make one’s case on the strength of one’s argument and to let others judge it for what it is worth. Our democracy is not weaker because of the scrutiny; it is stronger because of its democracy. 
Healthy democracy does not tolerate dissenting voices it demands them because when they are silenced slowly but surely we are all silenced. Democracy is about participation for everyone but it comes at a price. We have to be prepared to hear opinions that we do not like from people we cannot stand on topics we might not want to debate. That is what participation in a democracy is all about. 
This legislation today is designed for one reason alone and that is to silence democracy reduce participation and put a legalised gagging order on the people that Helen Clark and her travellers do not like. There can be no other explanation for a law that will see New Zealanders spending one-third of their adult life subject to a law that is so bureaucratic where the hoops are so bad and that is so muddled that the Prime Minister has told people to consult a lawyer if they want to try to understand it. The Government cannot explain the legislation. What sort of democracy are we creating in this country when we are creating law so muddled that the Electoral Commission is confused by it the Law Society is against it former Prime Ministers have come out speaking against it and the Minister has said the only hope for it is to apply common sense to law that has no fundamental common sense in itself? 
Helen Clark does not care. She does not care for one reason: for blatant self-interest she will pass this law because she thinks nobody will notice. According to Helen Clark when issues get tough they are inside the beltway and nobody notices. Well I have news for Helen Clark. Everybody has noticed and the vast overwhelming majority are opposed to this legislation. The only thing Helen Clark has been able to hide behind throughout this entire debate is some sinister kind of plot that is all about big money. 
If there is big money involved in New Zealand politics it is the big money of the Labour Party. These are the people who spent $50 million through Government agencies in a non - election year but nearly $70 million when an election was under control. That is the reason they no longer care about neutrality of the Public Service. You see with Labour and an election the role of a communications manager is a political appointment. That is why Madeleine Setchell’s face did not fit. That is why Clare Curran’s face did fit. That is why Erin Leigh was defamed in this House by a Minister who used advice for which that ministry has apologised and for which he will not. That is the reason why. And this—the audacity of this—from a party that got caught in the last election flogging $800000! It has the audacity to lecture New Zealanders about big money. Labour did not break the law once— 
Jill Pettis 
: Pay back the GST! 
JOHN KEY 
: Actually I say to Jill Pettis Labour broke the law twice. It broke the electoral cap as well. If anyone is involved in big money it is the Labour Party. 
So there can be only two explanations for this legislation and they are quite simple. One is desperation and the other is breathtaking arrogance. One of them is a good reason to boot Labour out; with both of them combined it is a necessity. 
Let me say this to the people of New Zealand who are engaged in this debate and who are interested: National will repeal this legislation. We will go back to basics. We will go back to the way it was. We will ask independent people to go out there and come up with electoral law. You see electoral law is not owned by the Labour Party for the benefit of the Labour Party. Electoral law is owned by the people of New Zealand so that we can have a democracy. 
This is a sad day for New Zealand. It is the day the Labour Party admitted publicly and through legislation that it cannot win unless it changes the law. That is what happened today. National will repeal the law. We will go back to a bipartisan basis where independent people will come up with some recommendations. I say this and this alone: history will mark this day. This is the day when Helen Clark arrogantly inflicted anti-democratic legislation upon the people of New Zealand and when the collective voters of New Zealand know once and for all that it is time for a change. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 My experience in politics is that leaders who need standing ovations— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This may well be the last sitting day for 2007 but no political party should be allowed to show the contempt for a parliamentary officer that the National Party members just did. You had asked them to come to order and they decided to put on a stunt of clapping and applause. That is OK but when you asked them to stop—[ 
Interruption 
] There is Paula Bennett again dressed up in her karate suit and shouting as though she is at a karate lesson. 
Madam Speaker my point is that when you asked those members to sit down they paid no attention whatsoever; they just carried on. If we go into 2008 with that sort of behaviour there will be problems in this House because that is not a fair representation of the Standing Orders when it comes to members of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right—that was excessive. Now I am going to ask Paula Bennett to leave the Chamber. She has continually interrupted the member during his point of order and she knows that that is out of order. Please leave. 
Paula Bennett withdrew from the Chamber. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think your ruling is perfectly appropriate but there were about four other members who were talking at the same time. They know precisely who they are and I suggest that if you ask them they will no doubt vacate as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked one member to leave and I think that is sufficient at this time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you might tell us what Mr Peters’ point of order was and where we can refer to the matter in the Standing Orders that he brought to your attention. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member quite correctly raised a point of order about the order of the House. It was my call and my call to order. He was properly speaking to that. Members should always resume their seats when the Speaker stands. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My experience in politics is that leaders who need standing ovations are usually in big trouble. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to challenge the member speaking to provide the  
Hansard 
 that shows any occasion during any of the five party leaderships he has had when he has had a standing ovation because clearly he has got into a lot of trouble without that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member knows that was not a point of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I want to address this debate because I represent the only party in this House that did not breach the electoral expenditure rules and laws at the last election. It sticks in the throat a bit to hear so many people striking a high moral tone when their own hands are not clean in this matter. National members cannot get up in this House and demurely claim they are interested only in democracy when they flouted the electoral laws at the last election. National cannot claim to be pure when it has a record showing it set aside the electoral laws that did not suit it. 
Only one party did not flout the law and I am leading it in this House. We did not use public money for our advertisements we did not run a GST rort and we did not try to use public money voted for one purpose to pay for our own purposes. Undoubtedly the Progressives were disadvantaged when we opted to play within the rules. I have not come into this Chamber and trumpeted that we alone were obeying the laws because we did only what was right. It sticks in the throat to hear the National Party pretending it cares about democracy when its record is sleazy and opportunistic. I say to the National members that they should not get on their high horses about democracy until they have clean hands. This legislation makes a simple choice about our democracy. Who should own our democracy: big money or the people of New Zealand? We cannot have it both ways. Where the anonymous big money goes the interests of the people come second. 
I want to ask everyone who is opposed to this bill a question: why should anyone be allowed to do what the Exclusive Brethren did in my electorate in the last election? They came into my electorate on the Friday before the election the day before that Saturday and they bought a full page ad in the local newspaper. The ad told complete lies about my record in the electorate and my political position on policy matters. They distributed that false advertisement on that Friday night to every household in the electorate. The address given in the ad was fake and the people behind it tried to remain anonymous but we found out that they were church people. That ad was published the day before the election when it was far too late to respond and reply. It was an attempt to buy an election with money instead of with truth and ideas. I want to know how fair that is. How is that democratic? How is it fair and democratic that people who do not identify themselves can spend as much as they like to sway the result of an election? 
I support the Electoral Finance Bill because elections should not be decided by the largest wallet. I support the Electoral Finance Bill because it is about ensuring that no one can buy an election result. I support the Electoral Finance Bill because the best ideas should win not the best-funded ones. I want to remind this House of what happened when money had its way in New Zealand in the 1980s and 1990s. We saw a fire sale of our assets. Was it just a coincidence that the people who were buying those assets at knock-down fire-sale prices were the same people who handed out tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to the political parties doing the selling? We saw the interests of New Zealand put in second place and we are still paying the price for it. 
Some of us sat in this Chamber right through that period. John Key might have been offered overseas cocktails parties with the donors he now wants to let buy as many votes as they can afford; some of us were not. We have not forgotten what was done to New Zealand and the enormous cost of it. What an amazing coincidence that the same people who bought the assets were the people who paid enormous sums of money to the political parties of the day. What a coincidence that whatever those donors wanted they got. The interests of New Zealanders were relegated behind the interests of the companies of the rich buyers of our assets. 
Even if one does not believe that the policy was bought look at the perceptions that policy followed money. Look at the damage those perceptions did to the fabric of our democracy and to the respect for the political process. That sort of politics has no place in New Zealand. This legislation helps to erect a wall against the anti-democratic sale and purchase of electoral influence. The bill says that parties that take huge secret donations must tell us to whom they are in hock whom they owe favours to and what they are going to do in order to get the money. 
When Deep Throat exposed Richard Nixon and Watergate he told the reporters at the  
Washington Post 
 to follow the money. This principle is as old as wisdom. We used to say: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” We want to know who is paying so that we might better understand what the electoral tune is. If Watergate had happened here the  
New Zealand Herald  
would have praised the money that paid for the conspiracy. Instead of Woodward and Bernstein we would have had editorials praising the President for protecting the rights of anyone to buy political favours. Instead of sending reporters out to expose the scandal the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s editor would have sent out a sales team to ask for a cut. 
I wish we could rely on an independent news media to expose the influence of big money in this country but the record shows that we cannot. The record shows that newspapers take the money in advertising and then shut up about it. Look at the  
New Zealand Herald 
 letting its greed get in the way of its objectivity. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 campaigns to let anyone buy elections. The  
New Zealand Herald  
campaigns because it knows what side its bread is buttered on. It knows that it does not raise concerns when its pages are being used to buy votes. It does not object when its own pages are used unfairly. It takes 30 pieces of silver and sits compromised to the core of its soul. If members look at the editorials of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 over 100 years they will find exactly the same kind of stand as now. Members will find that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was wrong when it did it then and it is wrong when it does it now. 
If newspapers will not do the job of making elections fair someone else has to. We need to limit the role of big money to protect our democracy. This bill puts a cap on the amount of money anyone can spend to lobby for their point of view. So it poses a question to opponents of this bill: how much money is too much to spend influencing an election? Is it $1 million? Is it $5 million? Is it $10 million? Is it $20 million? If there is no cap on the amount that should be spent then we are saying our democracy should be for sale. If there is no cap then we do not have a democracy; we have an auction. If there is no cap on election spending then we might as well turn Parliament over to TradeMe. If we accept that there should be some limit on the amount people are spending then we are merely debating the quantum. 
Members cannot tell me that fundamental issues of democracy are not at stake here. If I say the limit should be $1 and those members say it should be $2 what is fundamental about that? No; the fundamental issue is whether there should be any cap at all. I want National members to state plainly during this debate that they believe there should be no limit on anonymous donations—that there should be no limit to what can be bought with those sacks full of cash. 
I wonder what the National members have in mind. It is no coincidence that National has only announced one policy for next year’s election—selling assets. Here we go again—unlimited money in our politics and an unlimited fire sale of the public’s family silver. The pigs are trying to get into the trough again. They cannot wait to get their noses into it. The National Party has already sold its policy. When National members say they will repeal this legislation what do they mean? Do they mean that National will not have any electoral finance laws at all? Do they mean that people will be able to spend as much as they like? Do they mean that anyone will be able to give any amount of cash to the National Party without declaring it? I wonder what the National Party wants. If National members are saying that there should not be some limit on the ability of anonymous people to buy elections then— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell us about Mike Moore’s view. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yeah—think about it. Yes I have heard Mike Moore. I was in this House when Mike Moore was here. I know about Mike Moore. 
If National members are saying that people should be able to spend what they like in an election then they are saying that people who spend more money should have more say. That is not democracy; that is a disgrace against the most fundamental ideas of civilised organisation. This bill should be supported by all members of this House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Where is the leadership of the Labour Government when it is under more pressure than it has been for 8 years? Where is Helen Clark who should be backing the legislation that her Cabinet signed off? Where is the brave rising star Phil Goff? Where is the ever-angry and principled Dr Cullen? It is typical of Helen Clark that the organ grinder has sent the monkey today to articulate the visceral disgust that Labour has of anyone who criticises it. I have never heard such vitriol about the media in this House—even from the former member for Tauranga. This vitriol came from a member whose party has accepted anonymous donations and who was president of the Labour Party that funded its 1987 campaign through all of the people he condemns today. 
I advise the member Jim Anderton of one inconvenient fact. Today he talked about the fact that the Electoral Finance Bill stops anonymous donors buying elections. He sat in a Cabinet that approved the original draft of the bill that had no restrictions in it on anonymous donations—despite the fact that the National Party had said publicly for months that it supported restrictions on anonymous donations. That is a measure of how insincere Labour’s arguments are. It presented legislation with no restrictions on anonymous donations and now it is using the restrictions forced on it by the Greens as being the sole reason for the legislation. That is why the Labour leadership will not front up to defend this legislation. 
The member also talked about big money and buying votes. Well who would be experts on that but Labour? He said $1 million was big money. Today the Government gave us a Budget update. It has $3.5 billion that it will use to buy the next election. So it does not matter which way we look at it: this legislation is all about entrenching the right of Government and the political establishment to use big public money to buy elections and no one will be able to stop it. The Government can give hundreds of millions of dollars in tertiary funding and it can use Government political advertising to promote this—as the Government will do next year. An MP has a big public budget and can say that he or she has the hundreds of millions of dollars for polytechs and universities. But if one wants to oppose it— 
Shane Ardern 
: You can’t! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well one can but if one spends more than $12000 one has to register as a third party and appoint a financial agent. One has to present returns of donations and returns of expenses and one can be personally subject to a search warrant. If someone is suspected of spending more than $12000—when the Government is spending $1 billion—the police can search that person’s house under this legislation. If someone broke the law that person could be fined $100000 or be locked up for 2 years. 
So what will happen is that people who want to oppose this Government will ask their lawyers and their lawyers will explain just the process I have explained. Well-meaning well-intentioned people—like the people of my home province of Southland—will be worried. In this small democracy this great democracy the good citizens of Southland will be worried about whether they can legally hold a political opinion in an election year without facing the threat of imprisonment. The former member for Tauranga—the great radical anti-establishment figure—is all in favour of that. 
The other ridiculous thing about this legislation is that if I stand up in Southland or if my colleague Eric Roy stands up and we say “Vote Labour out. They are trying to shut down the Southern Institute of Technology.” that will be legal. If Tim Shadbolt gets up and says it it could be illegal and he could be arrested. That is how ridiculous this legislation is. It says that a private citizen or a community organisation faces tight rules and less money but a politician or a Government has no rules and a lot more money. That is the ultimate arrogance. 
You see this is not about big money from the citizenship or from the community; this is about entrenching and defending the right of politicians to spend someone else’s money on influencing elections. If we listened to Jim Anderton we would think that it had never occurred to a politician to use public money to influence an election that politicians are purely motivated by the good of the country and that everyone else is a rip-off merchant trying to do something secretly to influence people in corrupt ways. That is what New Zealand First and Labour believe. They believe that the people running the campaign from Southland about the Southern Institute of Technology are venal self-interested and probably trying to corrupt the system. They believe that the Minister who is flying up and down spending millions of dollars of public money is purely motivated and that he or she should have more say. For every election that I have stood in and the dozens that went before it MPs and people—normal public people—were subject to the same law. For 3 months before the election it was one law for the politicians and the same law for everyone else but Labour has decided to exempt MPs. 
What a mess Annette King has made of this legislation. The public have trampled all over the Electoral Finance Bill but the Electoral Finance Bill has trampled all over her reputation. To show the paranoia of the Labour Government Annette King tried to define the use of public money in a way that would prevent the Opposition from telling the public what it would do after the election. And these are the people who say we have no policy! Labour was going to make having a policy almost illegal. 
Here is another little pearler. [ 
Interruption 
] The member who is yelling down the back there Jill Pettis got $9500 of anonymous donations in the last election. This legislation tells us much more about the character of the Labour Government than it does about anything else. It shows that it cannot take criticism. It shows that it wants to extend its culture of bullying and manipulation in the civil service to the rest of the public. But it tells us something else that is very important. The Labour Party and Helen Clark cannot conceive of a public good that is separate from the good of the Labour Party. They cannot conceive of it. Their belief is that people who criticise them are against the Labour Government and that is why they criticise them. 
I want to tell Labour from my experience in politics that often one’s critics are right. Often they are advocating a public good that one cannot see oneself. I am sure that right now Labour members are saying that the people who run the Southern Institute of Technology spend all their time planning to get Labour. Well actually they do not. It has a community interest in what happens to its own institutions as communities right through the country do. That is the ultimate arrogance. Labour cannot see a public good that is separate from what is good for Labour. Well this legislation is bad for Labour—that is obvious—but it is terrible for New Zealand. It is an anti-democratic drift-net. It will not do what Labour says it will do. We will repeal the legislation because it is a case of the Government using its constitutional majority for partisan advantage and it has to go. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On 22 November in response to two questions I made comments in relation to Ms Erin Leigh. On reflection I now believe it was not wise to make those comments. I apologise to her. 
Tabling of Documents 
Ferguson Lecture 2006 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Ferguson Lecture of 2006 by Marion Maddox. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electoral Finance Bill 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Electoral Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The New Zealand First Party believes in capitalism as the best way socially and economically to organise the affairs of society. But when we talk about capitalism we talk about responsible capitalism of the type articulated by men like Benjamin Disraeli and Keith Holyoake in the 1950s and 1960s in New Zealand. We do not talk about the elitism the autocracy the oligarchy or the special interests that certain people in this Parliament represent today and nothing else. That is the modern National Party. It is light years away from what it used to be and Mr English had the audacity to stand up here today repeating myths and shibboleths that are not true. He knows that they are absurd but because he has an attentive audience from the foreign-owned principal media of this country namely the Christchurch  
Press 
 the  
Dominion Post 
 and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 he knows he can get coverage. 
Let me ask members this question. Did the  
New Zealand Herald 
 complain back in 1993 when the National Party shut down another political party from advertising on any occasion in the campaign on radio or TV? Did the  
New Zealand Herald 
 complain? Did the  
Dominion Post 
 complain? Did that great doyen of the free and the faithful the Christchurch  
Press 
 complain? Not a word not a sound not a mutter not a murmur. That is what principle is about in this Parliament. This party over here got $1.4 million in the last campaign in secret trusts. Where did it come from? This party gets more than $7 million every year now. The taxpayer pays the National Party above all other parties $7 million - plus to prosecute its parliamentary business. Now tell me why would a party want an uncapped fund after getting $7 million from the taxpayers? 
What is mysterious about this whole campaign over the Electoral Finance Bill is this. We are trying to find out whose freedom of speech is going to be suppressed. Has anybody told members whose freedom of speech is going to be suppressed? Well I have not heard. Here comes the second mystery. What do the opponents of the bill want to say from now until the next election and why would they want to spend millions of dollars buying space to say it? What do the opponents of this bill want to say from now until the next election and why would they want millions of dollars to say that? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They shouldn’t need it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They should not need it; that is exactly right. If National members’ attention span can manage it they should think about this. There is so much free speech around that we are swamped with it. We hear it all the time whether or not we want to listen. Listen to the talkback shows. There is enough free speech to keep a small town going 24 hours a day—there is so much hot air. Everybody has a view from the All Blacks to dare I say it Nicky Watson. Everybody has a view about everything. We have never had so much free speech in this country’s history. Why are we being warned every day by the National Party and its rich friends that this freedom of speech is to be taken away from us? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Mendacious civil rights. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mendacious civil rights? They still do not know what that means. They could be given millions in a campaign on literacy and they would still not be any wiser at the end of the process. But here is my point. What is it that has been taken away from New Zealanders that these paragons of democratic virtue—in the National Party of all parties—are seeking to defend? Bill English gets up in a right lather posturing as he does and giving his legal views which are not worth the paper they are written on. They are wrong they are false; nobody is going to be denied a chance to speak up at the next election. 
I just want to say this to my friend Tim Shadbolt before he makes a mistake. It was a New Zealand First Treasurer who uncapped the funding to tertiary institutions in this country back in 1998. That is a fact. For the first time the funding was uncapped. He should read the fine print and he will not be so alarmed. But if he thinks he has a friend in the National Party he has lost it—he has lost his fine political instincts. If he thinks the National Party will help him my poor friend Tim has lost his political touch so I say to Tim: “Be careful.” 
New Zealand First is happy for the National Party to have all the opportunity it needs for freedom of speech because we just might hear a policy. Can I ask these questions? What is the National Party’s policy on Working for Families? What is its policy on medical care for all ages? What is its policy on the Reserve Bank legislation? What is its policy on for example KiwiSaver? What is its policy on tertiary education funding or latchkey kids? What is its policy on asset sales? What is its policy on foreign banks price gouging New Zealanders? What is its policy on business taxes to come? The National Party does not have a policy. I have some little doubts about this because I would like National to have enough money to sell its policies. But of course it will not cost much because right now we have not heard one—on anything. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does Garth McVicar think of this? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me tell the member that if Garth McVicar thinks he is helping the sensible sentencing cause by lining up with the National Party then he has sold the cause down the drain. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes! I remember the National Party’s last policy on law and order. Do members know what it was? National spent $340 million on a computer called INCIS. That computer was such a brilliant piece of technology it would go out and arrest all the lawless in our society! Garth McVicar should know that $340 million was the cost of the last law and order policy that the National Party put up before the country. Do members know what happened? The computer’s operators could not get it to work. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does Grey Power say? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I was down at Nelson with Grey Power last Friday and I say to Maurice Williamson that its members are still cheering. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh yeah? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They are still cheering because for the first time they heard the truth. Up until then they had been hearing the shibboleths from one Nick Smith. So we can see why they were confused. What is the National Party’s policy on Fonterra—come on—or on Television New Zealand— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What has this to do with the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It has everything to do with it. I say to Dr Mapp that is why we want to know who is backing National because we are not going to have the kind of covert money that is destroying democracy in some countries in the Pacific today. Oh yes! Dr Mapp from Auckland University used to understand this at one time. Does he remember when the National Party was selling the BNZ? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Get back on the topic. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Does he remember that the National Party sold the BNZ? He was a councillor for the National Party was he not? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he was. So the National Party sold the BNZ— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They did not “sell” the BNZ; they bailed it out. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it did. It was 22 October 1992—do members not remember? The BNZ 30 percent—[ 
Interruption 
] No no. Who sold it to the National Australia Bank? The sale of the BNZ to the National Australia Bank was effected by the National Party yet the front bench of the National Party are denying it. There is Maurice Williamson a front-bench member of the National Party who cannot remember yesterday. What is its policy today? It is still the same old policy. 
National says that if this law were only for the 3 months out from an election it would be OK. What an amazing confession! If the law were only for the last 3 months of an election campaign then National says it would be OK. So what is the issue here? The issue is that National could not spend all the money that it has been given over and above the $7 million the taxpayer gives it every year. Can we imagine Holyoake worrying about this legislation? Can we imagine Marshall worrying about this legislation? Can we imagine Adam Hamilton worrying about the legislation? Can we even imagine Muldoon being concerned about this? Of course he would not because he would be out there doing some real campaigning at public meetings not organising photo opportunities at the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and advertising and DVDs and stealing somebody else’s copyright on songs. That is what has happened here. 
The National Party has lost it! It needs this money to disguise the inability of its front bench. It is the worst most hopeless untalented front bench the National Party has ever had. Come on! I ask Doug Woolerton because he and I have been around a long time we had been in the National Party for a long time—long before these current guys—whether that front bench is the worst he has ever seen. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Absolutely! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There you are; that is the voice of an expert. So we all agree. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased with the changes that the House is making to the financing of election campaigns. The Greens respect the fact that there are good reasons for the boundaries this legislation places on the purchase of advertising and other campaign material. We are proud to have severely limited the anonymous donations that political parties can receive for electioneering purposes. We agree that such constraints are necessary in a free and democratic society that values a level playing field and fairer elections. 
It is somewhat ironic that those who purport to be champions of individualism and freedom of speech are the ones opposing the bill because they are opposing the very precepts on which this modern democratic system we participate in was built. They are opposing the principles of equality that their and my forebears sought to honour when they first arrived in this country. My ancestors Susannah and Henry Hawes arrived in Karamea from the ship  
Michelangelo 
 which left Gravesend in 1874. Susannah was a pioneer of the West Coast. She came to this country to build a new life for herself and for her children. We can see in her writings many of which have survived that she had a great deal of hope and enthusiasm for her new life and her new country. She built her life here as part of a migration that sought to escape the inequality of the old country—the inequality of birth wealth and privilege. 
When she arrived here the representative Government had been in place for about 22 years and from the outset the potential for money to corrupt the political process in New Zealand had been both recognised and countered and the need for restraints had begun to be incorporated into law. As early as 1858 a law was passed to prohibit treating bribery of and the undue influence of money on our politicians. Politicians were not to be bought in our young New Zealand. In 1881 just a few years after Susannah’s arrival the first rules to define campaign election spending were passed. They imposed caps on how much money candidates could spend on their campaign. In 1895 the cap was set at £200. 
These early rules that constrained the ways that money would be allowed to influence politics and politicians were integral to the new parliamentary system. Our ancestors knew exactly how the privilege of money and class could interfere with political expression and they quickly created systems to prevent that interference. The clarity of our ancestors’ thinking on that score puts the current debate on this bill to shame. As new arrivals they could have been forgiven for creating a utopian system of unfettered liberties; instead they tried to ensure that their intention of building a new system came to pass—or at least they gave it their best shot. It was to be a system where money class the ownership of property and accidents of gender were not left to become the iron determinants of political engagement. Instead people built a system that elevated the place of opportunity and merit that privileged openness and free speech and above all that sought to make fairness its distinguishing feature. 
The Green Party is proud to uphold that principle. We are proud to have defended it against attacks on it by those who would interfere with its political expression through the privilege of wealth. Over the intervening years our rules have gradually been developed to take into account our growing nation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The 1986 report from the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was a watershed report on the impacts of money on political campaigning. Its recommendations came 95 years after the first limits on campaign spending. The commission argued and rightly I believe that if there were one area where our community should reasonably tolerate some limitations on the freedom of expression it would be in the systems of how we elect our Government. 
This has been the defining question in the debate over the bill—the question of whether it limits freedom of speech. Yes the bill limits how much can be spent on advertising thus extending the laws that New Zealand has had in place for over a century. We have two interesting examples of the use of money in such a context. We have the current example of the Southern Institute of Technology and its campaign in its newspaper advertisements. Under this bill the institute’s campaign advertisements are not electioneering; they are issues advertising so they are not covered by this bill. 
We also have a changing political process. We have got rid of door-knocking now—that traditional practice. Instead we have very expensive phone spamming by Canadian call centres which will ring 70000 households—just like that—in order to drum up support for a dying campaign. Yes this legislation requires transparency by those who are engaged in the electioneering campaign and the Greens are pleased we were able to expose the rort of 2005 before it could seriously contaminate the election process. This bill helps to protect us against that rort and that kind of corruption. We have obvious examples from other similar jurisdictions overseas where corruption has infected the political system. US democracy has become a commodity that is routinely bought and sold. 
Members should make no mistake: advertising works. In New Zealand the advertising industry is worth more than $2 billion a year. Nobody would spend that kind of money unless it was effective. Democracy in the US in fact relies on marketing for its very existence. Who can stand for election and whose message will prevail depends on the donors and the ongoing flows of cash and donations have come to depend on the elective representatives remembering to pay the piper. It is a form of democracy that has virtually no life at all outside the classic examples where donations determine who gets to stand and who gets to succeed. 
So why do institutions and individuals donate? The driver is a hunger for money by political parties but despite public funding in other comparable jurisdictions the hunger explains the driver only in part because donors want parties and hopefully Governments to be beholden to them and to be preferred over their business competitors. It is a neat cosy arrangement and it grows more blatant. Parties in Australia now openly call for donations that provide access to the Prime Minister or Premier at rates of $10000. It costs less to get to see a Minister. All of the donors want access and some would reasonably argue favours. 
In New Zealand we seem to have accepted that there is a situation of donations to political parties provided that the donation the giver and the receiver are known—that is disclosure is the key for us. The Greens to the best extent we could negotiate have ensured that we have severely restricted the capacity for anonymous donations to be made to political parties so that the public can know more about who is funding their political representatives and their political campaigns and can then assess their policy positions in response. We have exposed the secret trusts to the disinfectant of sunlight. We have exposed the rorts of the 2005 election and we do not want those rorts to happen again. We have closed those loopholes. For parties that are in Government such public scrutiny of funders and policy preferences is critical and the Greens have made that scrutiny by the public easier through the provisions in this legislation. 
The Greens will continue to work for better campaign funding law. This legislation does not do everything right and we need better work done. That is why we have advocated so strongly for a citizens’ assembly. A citizens’ assembly would comprise two people selected from each electorate who would work together as a group with advisers and a secretariat to consider New Zealand’s historical situation and comparable jurisdictions. It would hold public hearings and would work towards developing a new campaign funding law that is about the New Zealand situation. This is what we have been advocating for nearly a year. Such an assembly would enable the citizens of our country to devise election funding rules that meet the changing needs of a society that is sophisticated and technologically savvy but that at heart upholds the founding principles of the parliamentary democracy our forebears brought to this country—principles of transparency equality and fairness. In short we need Kiwi politicians with no strings attached. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Over these last few months of intense and passionate debate about the Electoral Finance Bill one email stood out for me because it said a lot about who we are as a Maori Party. I paraphrase part of that email here: “We are not members of the Exclusive Brethren. We are not members of the ACT party. We are not members of the National Party. We are not members of John Boscawen’s team as Helen Clark scathingly and incorrectly called those who marched in Auckland against this bill.” 
We are the Maori Party and I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight on our party’s position on this legislation. We are the Maori Party and contrary to the Government’s claims this legislation is not being attacked only by those New Zealanders who are able to pour thousands of dollars into electioneering campaigns to buy influence in Government. We are the Maori Party with nothing behind us save the tens of thousands of voters who put us here and our absolute commitment to the well-being of those voters and I tell everyone now that we are opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill. We are the Maori Party with not a bean to our name— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There used to be a Standing Order in this Parliament a Standing Order that I think still pertains. This is a debating chamber and when someone brings a laptop down here puts it on top of his desk and reads out his or her speech from it word for word then I think it diminishes this Parliament. It diminishes the whole debate because it means that no matter what is said we do not know whether it is the member’s view or the research office’s view. That is the point here. 
What has happened to this Parliament when someone can get up in the House and read out his or her speech word for word from a laptop particularly when that person is a Maori? Maori are meant to have oratorical skills. Why is a laptop needed? But here is the point: how does it help the debate? I think we should look seriously into what is going on here. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters is right up to a point. Up until 1996 it was not possible for members to read out their speeches but since then the Standing Orders have changed. I noticed that Mr Peters throughout the delivery of his speech made liberal use of papers in front of him. Indeed it has been the case in this Parliament for well over 10 years that laptops have been able to be brought into the House and used in delivering speeches. I commend the Maori Party for being up with the times and making use of a laptop. Reading a speech from a laptop in this way is no different from reading out speeches written and printed off for a member by a researcher as in Mr Peters’ case. 
Ron Mark 
: It is very well and fine for Mr Hide to raise a point of order but he knew the inaccuracies he was making as he articulated them. That can be proven by tabling both the  
Hansard 
 of the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ speech and a copy of the document he was holding while he was speaking. Mr Hide would then see that they do not match at all. 
But the point here is that we have heard a lot in this debate about the waste of taxpayers’ money. The member on his feet is a man who is paid $130000 to come here and speak and to stand up here and read out from a laptop the words that a researcher has put before him is not actually to do his job; it is simply to read out what the researcher has given him to read out 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will rule on this point of order. The Standing Orders have been— 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I take exception to what the member just said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Wait on I am just dealing with the point of order that has been raised specifically. I ask that there be silence while we are dealing with it. The Standing Orders have been changed. The member is allowed to do what he was doing. Furthermore instructions from the Speaker on 15 August 2007 on the use of laptops and mobile devices in the Chamber state that these may be used after question time. The member is allowed to use a laptop.  
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to confirm for the benefit of those members from New Zealand First that I wrote this speech myself completely. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No that is not an issue at all. It is not a point of order. Was that the member’s point of order? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: OK that is fine. Please continue. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I hope this has not affected my time Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No it has not. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Hei koreroano mena e hiahiaana a Winitana Pita kia koreroMaorimaua ka pai tera; engari e kore ia e mohioana ki taku reo. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
In addition should Winston Peters want us two to converse in Maori that is fine; but he will not understand my language 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not a— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First of all the principal language this Parliament uses is English. The second thing I want to say is that if I wanted to consult an expert in te reo I would not be consulting Hone Harawira; I would consult someone who is qualified. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not really a point of order either. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I want to make the point that if I wish to speak in Maori at any time I will do so. 
We are the Maori Party with not a bean to our name but we still turned down $250000 rather than compromise our independence and for the same reasons we are opposed to this bill. We are the Maori Party and we were angry with both the divisive “Iwi/Kiwi” campaign run by National and the nasty “a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National” campaign run by Labour because we did not have the wherewithal to counteract either. Yet still we are opposed to this bill. We are the Maori Party with not a bean to our name but we stand free in this House answerable to no one but our own people uncompromised by shady deals with either of the major parties and we are proud to say that we are opposed to this electoral finance legislation. 
Yes like most New Zealanders we were horrified at the revelations of secret trust accounts and the millions of dollars being spent by other groups in support of the campaigns of both Labour and National. And yes we agree that Parliament should pass laws to prevent the undue influence that lobbyists can have on our electoral process. But unlike Labour our focus is not only on the rich the very rich and the obscenely rich. We also saw unions spending heaps of money to undermine us at the last election. It was a classic third-party attack to try to link Maori Party votes with National when in fact our voting pattern has always been more in line with that of the Greens. And I am proud to say that regardless of all the big money offered to us and the nasty underhand tactics used against us the Maori Party stands by its kaupapa of opposing corruption opposing illegality and opposing the abuse of power in all its forms. 
And yes the Exclusive Brethren’s million-dollar anti-Labour - anti-Greens campaign was beyond the pale but I cannot help but smell the filthy stench of hypocrisy from the Labour Party in its attack on the Brethren— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member must withdraw that comment. He cannot accuse a person or a party of hypocrisy. Please withdraw. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I withdraw— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: And apologise? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I am happy to apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: It was not the Exclusive Brethren on whom the police had prima facie evidence of electoral finance mismanagement was it? Heck no—it was the Labour Party. Does everybody remember that? The cops said that they had a prima facie case of electoral mismanagement against the Prime Minister’s very own private secretary but they did not want to press charges against an individual for what was clearly the work of a group of people. And it was that very same Labour Party that then set up a special deal with its mates to rewrite the law to let the party keep doing what it did last time while gagging the voices of the Opposition. 
Members should make no mistake: the Maori Party stands firmly against the kind of overwhelming financial firepower that only parties like National can boast of. But as we sit here and listen to all the doomsayers from Labour prattle on about the destructive power of overseas influence let me just point out to anyone who does not think that our Governments are not already controlled by overseas interests that they need only look at the Waihopai spy base to realise that our nation’s security—indeed our nation’s very sovereignty—is already compromised by the existence of a super-secret operation to spy on the people of the Pacific right here on New Zealand soil and controlled not from Wellington but from Washington. 
To those people who think that money wins elections I say to take a look at the good old US of A where 3 years ago billionaire Democrat Norman Lear and his mates spent more than $15 million to try to push George Bush out of office and buy the election for John Kerry. Well that did not work too well did it? George Bush is now President Bush and John Kerry is “John Who?”. What about the senior Republican senator who spent $42 million on his election race and still came second? 
Yes folks—money talks. But nothing talks quite like the truth and the truth about this bill is that it is nothing but an arrogant dismissal by this Labour-led Government to deny the citizens of Aotearoa - New Zealand the right to participate in one of the fundamental rights of any so-called democratic society: how we elect our Government. And no we will not be fobbed off by any talk that this legislation is only about election finances because it ain’t. If this were only about election finances then why did this Labour Government push through special legislation to validate its $800000 overspend at the last election rather than let the legal process take its natural course? If this were only about election finances then why did this Labour Government not ask the Auditor-General and the Electoral Commission to present a range of options for public consideration and for presentation to this House? If this were only about election finances then why does the Human Rights Commission say that this bill is a dramatic assault on fundamental human rights freedom of expression and the right to participate in the electoral process? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Not in the second letter they didn’t. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: That is right; they did not. If this were only about election finances then why did the Human Rights Commission say that even this rewritten flea-bitten revised patched-up and unrecognised version should still have been given back to the public for full discussion and debate? I will tell the House why. Because this legislation is not just about election finances; it is about the sweet scent of power and the lust for control. It is about the decadence of corruption the stench of deceit and the refusal to accept the reality of impending defeat. 
Yes there have been amendments—hell we even voted for one of them. But given the constitutional importance of legislation that will play a critical role in determining how the next election will be fought stitching up this deal behind closed doors and then adding a veneer of democracy through a select committee process is nothing but a sick joke. Mind you this Government’s denying the people of Aotearoa the right to open a public debate on the process by which we manage the next election is right up there with its changing the law to bypass any serious questioning of its expenditure at the last election. 
The Maori Party will not be party to legislation that is clearly aimed at restricting freedom of speech. We will not be party to this desperate attempt by Labour to stay in power at the expense of the fundamental human rights of the citizens of this country. We will not be party to legislation designed to put fear into those who would speak their mind by forcing them to run the gauntlet of registration audit notification financial agency monitoring reporting scrutiny and penalty. And we will not be party to a bill that slams the door on Opposition spending while it allows the Government to continue to spend millions on promoting its own policies and programmes. 
The Maori Party was born out of Maoridom’s absolute rejection of this Labour Government’s arrogant denial of our basic human rights to the foreshore and seabed and with the same vigour and determination we will reject this legislation that rewrites the law to allow this Government to stay in power. Money is not what drives people to vote; it is truth. I sincerely hope and pray that those who have sacrificed truth for the delusion of power that overwhelms this decadent and depraved legislation will come to see the folly of their ways when the people reject this sham come election 2008. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future supported the introduction and development of the Electoral Finance Bill because we believed that it was important to tidy up the excesses of the last election in order to ensure that New Zealand continued to have a fair and open electoral system into the future. We still do believe that which is why we have worked in the select committee and elsewhere to improve the legislation and to remove its most obnoxious features. We believe that that has been achieved and we have continued to support the legislation through its second reading and the Committee of the whole House despite our very deep concerns about the partisan way in which it has been developed. We would have strongly preferred there to be a genuine multi-party involvement in the development of this legislation given that there was—at least initially—a measure of common ground apparent on some of the issues it was likely to cover. 
Over recent weeks partly but not solely in response to a well-orchestrated campaign it has become clear that many New Zealanders have deep unease about the legislation and its provisions as they perceive them. Many hundreds of people have contacted me through letters emails our party website and other sources to let me know what they think about this legislation and contrary to what some may think I have read personally every item of communication delivered to me. 
Although some of those measures have contained the usual outpourings of abuse and partisanship which I have properly disregarded and others have been plainly misinformed many have also come from people within my electorate and around the country whose views I genuinely respect. In particular I have been struck by the messages from individuals with no special political axe to grind who genuinely fear that this legislation will limit their right to freedom of speech and expression. I am not talking about lobby interest groups that have a vested interest to pursue but about average citizens who feel affronted by what they consider to be an attack on the essential freedoms they enjoy as New Zealanders. Various efforts made by me and others to persuade them that this is not the case have not succeeded and it is pointless to continue attempting to do so. 
All of this brings me to the legislation itself. No matter what it states or how well it has been crafted or what official interpretations are placed upon it the court of public opinion is holding it to be a self-serving attack on the freedom of our electoral process. That perception has become the new reality whatever we in this House may think of it. So the dilemma we as a party and I as an individual legislator face is this: should we continue to put in place legislation that we know is failing the test of public credibility? The answer we have come to is that we should not. 
During the life of a Parliament there are likely to be many pieces of legislation passed that are unpopular and this legislation could be just another one of those. There will be those who say that members of Parliament need to be able to stand against the public pressure on these matters in the wider interests of doing what is right. We are elected here to lead our country not to blow aimlessly like straws in the wind they would argue and that is so. That is why United Future works constructively and cooperatively with the Labour-led Government through our confidence and supply agreement to achieve the policies we believe are in the best interests of the country and that is why we remain committed to doing so for at least the balance of this parliamentary term. 
However this legislation is not just another piece of unpopular legislation. Because of its nature and its content it goes far beyond that. There comes an occasional time when a blind adherence to leading the country gives way to what some might see as a form of arrogance and where the perception of being a straw in the wind is outweighed by the necessity of being seen to listen to what the people are saying. This legislation has become one of those occasions. 
The blunt truth is that New Zealanders have gone beyond caring about its content; they simply mistrust it. I immediately acknowledge the rich ironies here. Many of the same people were and remain properly horrified at the antics of the last election and they would be appalled if our election process ever became subverted by big money. They do not want to know what secrets parties have; they do want to know who is pulling the party strings. But their mistrust has developed because those views notwithstanding they do not see this legislation so much as a genuine attempt to resolve those problems as more a case of political utu. Legislation perceived in that way cannot succeed. A more robust and transparent process of independent review of all aspects of election funding—including the provisions of this legislation and vexed issues such as the State funding of political parties and maybe even a fixed election date—is a far better way to proceed. United Future has listened carefully to the views and feelings of New Zealanders. Consequently we have come to the conclusion that we can no longer support the passage of the legislation. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I commend Mr Peter Dunne and United Future for the stand they have taken today and for saying that in their view the law is OK but public perception is against it and that therefore they will vote against this legislation. 
What we have had here irrespective of one’s view of this legislation is a very poor process by which it has been developed. I think that the poor process is at the heart of the concern that Mr Dunne has identified. I look across to the Labour members I look across to New Zealand First and I look to the Greens— 
Jill Pettis 
: We looked for you once but you were dancing. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —and I would say to them that if we are to develop an electoral system a donation regime for political parties and a set of rules the citizens of New Zealand can follow that will stand the test of time then we need a proper process. We need a process that is independent of the political parties that engages with the public and that then comes back to this Parliament for Parliament to consider. 
We have here a mixture of revenge envy political partisanship and political opportunism—the worst possible process that we could have for developing our electoral law. The result of it whatever we may think of the legislation is a bad outcome from the point of view of public perception. We have already had the major Opposition party say that it will repeal it so it will not last if there should be a change of Government. That is not the way to be developing electoral law in this country. 
Ron Mark 
: Who’s going to help them? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me turn here I say to Mr Mark—and I would tell Ms Pettis to listen to this—to why the ACT party opposes this legislation. We oppose this legislation not only because of the process but also because of the law itself. I cannot believe that Labour New Zealand First and the Green Party would be passing on the last day of the parliamentary year a law of State censorship of New Zealanders’ right to speak out to criticise a Government a political party or a policy. That is a fundamental right of every New Zealander. 
Jill Pettis 
: You lot just want to buy an election. Is it OK to buy an election? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Ms Pettis that it is not about the financing of political parties; it is about the right of New Zealanders to speak out against a Government against a political party and against a policy that they oppose. It should be a free right of all New Zealanders to be able to speak out—not just on talkback and by door-knocking but by spending their own money on organising and by spending their own money on pamphlets. That should be the fundamental right of every New Zealander. 
It may be that the Labour Party the National Party or the ACT party do not like the criticism but each and every one of us in this Parliament should be standing up for the right of New Zealanders to express their political opinions. Regardless of whether we believe it is right whether we believe it is wrong or whether we believe it is true or untrue we should be defending the right of New Zealanders to have their political views. 
Jill Pettis 
: So how come you didn’t say anything when National closed off the rolls a month before the election in 1993? How come you didn’t say anything then? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can understand why Jill Pettis is against that having listened to her yell and scream and try to shut down the debate even in this House. 
I say to the Labour Party New Zealand First and to the Green Party that for me it has been a sad day to sit in this House and listen to the partisan views and to hear the attacks on the New Zealand media when those members say the media is wrong because they do not agree with this legislation. I have listened to the attacks made on Mr John Boscawen a citizen who stood up against this legislation and on everyone who stands up against this legislation as though somehow those people are wrong or badly motivated. 
I say that it is a sad day when the Prime Minister of New Zealand cannot be here on this day to debate this most vicious attack on New Zealanders’ ability to express a political view. Why can New Zealanders not stand up say what they believe about politics and spend their own money doing so? What does Labour have to fear? What does New Zealand have to fear? What does the Green Party have to fear? Why is it that if a New Zealander wants to have a political view he or she now has to register with the Government? How is it possible that we have to register with the Government to express a political view and to spend our own money? That is what we are doing here and we are capping what people can spend. 
I say that the confusion on this legislation is simple. Somehow we have confused two great principles—the principle of free speech and the principle of democracy. The principle of democracy is one person one vote. That is the principle of a democratic country—one person one vote. That is what we should be standing up for here. There is another principle and it is called the principle of free speech. That means that we should be able to speak our own minds. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Mark that that also means we should be able to spend our own money. That is what those members hate. We should be able to spend our own money on printing a pamphlet that gives expression to our political views. 
I say that under this law all the great campaigns of history would have to be registered with the Government. That is what this Government is doing to New Zealanders. It is saying that the campaigns to free the slaves to abolish slavery and to give women the vote would have to be registered with the Government before they could be run. Campaigns against apartheid would have to be registered with the Government. Campaigns against unpopular wars would have to be registered with the Government. I say that our forebears did not fight and die in wars so that we could live in a free country where to campaign for a political view we would have to register with the Government and have a cap on what we could do and what we could spend. I say that Mr Peter Dunne has listened to the people of New Zealand. Why does New Zealand First not do so? Why do the Greens not do so? Why does Labour not do so? Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A number of Labour members of Parliament have moved from their seats and have been constantly barracking throughout a number of speeches. I just draw that to your attention. I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Ms Pettis has been rather vocal. I have tried to caution her but she is sitting in her right seat. She is replacing the senior whip. But in the position of senior whip she should set an example which is to enable orderly debate. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I am happy for Ms Pettis to be calling out. It is the only opportunity Labour gives her in this House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It seems to me that this House has come almost to the point of a headless chicken phase. We have a man who has just given a speech about things he apparently believes in which he says that if this legislation had been passed earlier the abolition of slavery in the US would not have happened and the universal suffrage movement might not have happened. He gave that speech with passion so either he believed it in which case he is deeply in trouble or he did not believe it in which case he ought not to have given it. 
I say to a previous speaker my colleague Hone Harawira from the Maori Party that his assessment of history around electoral law is a different history from mine. I will give him my truth on what electoral law history is. Actually our colleague MetiriaTurei began it when she reminded us that over a hundred years ago our forebears put limits upon themselves as to what they might expend when they went for public office simply because the culture of that moment and the culture that persists today is that we cannot buy public office in this land—we cannot buy it. We can argue for it we can cajole and we can campaign but we may not directly purchase public office in this land. We can purchase whatever else we wish. We can purchase an offshore island a 14th motorcar a third farm; we can purchase whatever we like in this market economy. But we may not purchase public office. 
The member from the ACT party Rodney Hide said “one person one vote” when he was arguing in the opposite direction. He was arguing for “one millionaire one seat in public office”. You see the point is that the whole idea of one person one vote is that we are equal—I go down and cast a vote the member goes down and casts a vote the millionaire goes down and casts a vote and the pauper goes down and casts a vote—yet the member opposes this legislation. 
Let us take a little step back in history. First of all a hundred years ago £200 was the limit and it progressed. We got to the 1950s and we worked out how to draw boundaries fairly. We missed the gerrymandering season that infested all of the United States and still infests Australia to an extent especially at State level; we missed that. We decided to do it properly and the criteria we laid down in 1956 still prevails. Some of us have spent a bit of time on electoral law select committees. I have done 9 years and a number of people around this House have done a similar amount of time and have a bit of experience so they will support this history to date. 
Then we move to the point where we decided we would go for MMP. In 1993 we put law in front of the House the third reading was given and the assent was carried by the people in the 1993 election. They said “We want MMP.” Not only did they say that but they said “We want MMP even though Peter Shirtcliffe has spent a lot of money on trying to dissuade us.” We did not react then; we did not react as a Parliament. We said “We understand that the electoral coalition has to raffle chooks and that Peter Shirtcliffe has to go and see his rough mates but even then we will not react—even then we don’t mind a bit of money having a bit of a say.” 
So we went through to 2005 and everything changed. In 2005 not only was there big money but the money came not from within but from without. Not only was it big money from without but it was big money that was covert and not overt. This was an attempt to buy an election anonymously. Peter Shirtcliffe put his head on the block and said “I’m doing this and I’m proud to be doing it.” and he went and spent all of his big money. We said “That’s OK.” But along came the Exclusive Brethren and said “We are not the Exclusive Brethren. We are not doing this. We have not spoken to the National Party. We have not gone to see the electoral law folk to see how we can get around the rules. We have done none of that. We are simply a group of business people.” But the Greens outed them. Then as the months went by—in fact as the weeks went by—in the course of the election campaign 2005 Gerry Brownlee who was being noisy a few minutes ago went on radio and said that he knew nothing about it. He went on radio and said “I don’t know.” Don Brash went on radio and said “I don’t know either.” Then he said “I only know a little bit.” Then he said “I only met them once.” Then he said “I only met them once at a time. I might have met them more than once.” And John Key said “I don’t know anything about it.” 
But yes they did. You see it was a collusion. It was not a coincidence it was not a bit of happy circumstance and it was not serendipity; it was a planned collusion around the electoral law of this land. For more than a hundred years we did not try to put limits on third parties. We saw no reason to do that. Whoever had an interest—be they the SPCA the Chambers of Commerce the unions the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Grey Power or Maori—could take part in the quest for the offices of the land and could do so without any regulation at all. All the while through the first of our centuries that was the way it was until the National Party’s secret mates came along. If National members want to know why we are standing here in the third reading debate passing this law I will tell them that they are the reason. National members did not say to the Exclusive Brethren “This is a step too far.” They did not say “Can you try to make it a quarter of a million instead of a million and a bit.” They did not say “Don’t go trying overtly to get around the electoral law.” And they did not tell the Brethren to out themselves. They did the opposite; they colluded. This was collusion in an attempt to win office. That is going too far; that is not tolerable. 
So we must join other Western democracies—although we have not until now—and start to regulate more in sadness than in anger I have to say. I do not think our country is better off for needing this regulation. But given that we need it we sure as hell are going to have it—just as Canada and the UK do. They have had to go down this path. I am sure they have done it more in sadness than in anger too. 
I will summarise. This country spent more than a hundred years not regulating third parties at all but regulating only candidates. It always regulated candidates but never anyone else and we got along OK. We got along with everyone’s little or medium-sized campaigns. We got along with Mr Shirtcliffe’s rich but overt open and out-there campaign. But the National Party decided that it would covertly use $1.2 million of someone else’s money offshore to try to help itself into office. The National Party needs to understand that that is beyond the culture of New Zealand’s electoral history. 
I ask my colleague from the Maori Party to hear that version of history and to understand it. I think his version of history is at variance with mine but that is how I see it. I do not think it is OK for this country ever to go to the point where we Americanise our politics and put our offices up for sale in some way or other. 
Mr Hide said that the truth will always out. Well I ask Mr Hide how an ordinary person a humble person or a modest person can have free speech when the airwaves are full with capitalists’ noise. That is what we were dealing with. Capitalism has its place because our market economy depends on it but we cannot use the riches of capitalism to buy a place in Parliament. At that point we have privatised the most public thing there is which is public office. So the line must be drawn. 
Bill English’s contribution which was a series of deliberate misinterpretations of the Electoral Act took us no further and John Key who opened this debate with the high moral pitch ended up sounding like a 13-year-old trying to read Shakespeare. It did not work. He got the round of applause that was pre-arranged but I could tell that the guy had not written the speech. He did not know how to pronounce “auspicious” and a few other words along the way. The truth of the matter is that these guys have to front up to the fact that they are the authors of their own misfortune. That is the truth of it. If it had not been for the Exclusive Brethren covertly attempting to buy office in New Zealand then we would not have had to be here. We have not been here until now. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague but I bring your attention to an intervention made by the member who is about to take a call Christopher Finlayson. He cast a comment to the Minister suggesting that he was a grandfather. The last time that sort of comment was ruled out of order in this House Sonja Davies had been abused by an Opposition member in a human rights debate. The member had said: “Go on Granny. Have a go.” That was ruled as being offensive. I urge you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. Apart from anything else the comment is ageist and I believe that the member is probably older than the Minister he was trying to insult by calling him a grandfather. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I think that the Standing Orders actually require Mr Hodgson to be upset. I am sure he is actually quite flattered by his great success. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think you are right but I thank the Hon Judith Tizard for raising the matter. I do not think the comment is offensive to the House. It does not help matters in the House but the person who is the subject of the comment is the right person to raise an objection to it if he or she wishes. Of course Ms Tizard you finished off almost in the same vein as Mr Finlayson by casting a reflection as to age. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 Mine was not a reflection of age; it was merely a comment. The member’s reflection was intended to be insulting and derogatory to older people. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I accept that. Thank you for raising the matter. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased the previous speaker mentioned Shakespeare because if ever there was a King Lear rave upon the heath without descending to the detail of legislation—as one should do in a third reading speech—it was that speech made by Mr Hodgson. In my speech I will look at the Committee stage of the legislation say something about what emerged from that and emphasise what my leader and deputy leader have said about the commitment of the National Party to repeal this odious legislation as soon as we gain office. I will not dwell this afternoon on the failure of the Attorney-General to provide a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He is a person who puts loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to country. His failings are well known. 
The system has failed. The safeguards one expects to work have not worked. If the select committee process was hopeless then the Committee stage of the legislation was simply a disgrace. If ever there was legislation that required a clause by clause analysis it was this. But instead of focusing on the workability of the legislation the Labour New Zealand First and Green members took calls on various parts of the legislation and had generalised raves about the last election. 
The Prime Minister’s response to our careful analysis was revealing. She criticised Mr English and me for nit-picking. She does not seem to understand that when inevitably there is litigation on this legislation next year judges will need to grapple with the words of a particular section to ascertain what the section means. I can predict one thing: Annette King’s law of common sense will not assist; nor will it be possible for the courts to receive any assistance by looking at  
Hansard 
. Were they to do so they would see that National members had tried hard to look at the difficult issues but that all Labour members including notably—I say for Mr Woolerton’s benefit—the Minister of Justice could only go on about the Exclusive Brethren. I predict there will be a great deal of litigation next year. This legislation contains so many uncertainties that litigation is inevitable. 
Secondly let us take a look at how the legislation emerged from the debate in the Committee stage. The National Party put forward a number of serious amendments—some were principled others were technical but very few of the latter category were accepted by the Government. I predict there will be another amendment bill next year and that some of my proposed amendments will have to be adopted then because the legislation that we are about to pass is unworkable. What about the regulated period provided for in clause 4? 
This legislation will shortly be signed into law and will take effect from 1 January. For 1 year out of 3 political discourse in New Zealand will be regulated. How does that further the interests of democracy whether one looks at it from the point of view of the political class or more important from the point of view of the public? The new Labour candidate for Wellington Central has already distributed a brochure introducing himself and he has done so to avoid the consequences of the regulated period and the cap that will apply after 1 January. Out in the field even the Labour Party is looking for ways to get around its own law. 
The supporters of this legislation have long said that it is designed to right the wrongs of 2005. That would be a noble goal if it was carried out with any sincerity but sincerity like public consultation during the select committee deliberations has been lacking. Instead this Government has chosen to be selective in the matters it has dealt with. It has conveniently ignored many of the wrongs that fell on its side of the ledger in 2005. The police decided they could not prosecute Heather Simpson because it would be unfair to tar an individual for a crime committed by a group. I proposed an amendment to the legislation that would have seen party liability introduced. Not only was this opposed by Labour but it was not even referred to by its own speakers. The police showed themselves to be out of their depth in dealing with matters of electoral law so we proposed the position of a chief electoral prosecutor who would be independent and who would have expertise to deal with this mess. Not only did Labour oppose this proposal it vetoed any debate on it on the grounds it thought it would cost $3 million. Labour never wanted to debate the merits of a sound proposal which was backed by many of the independent organisations that provided submissions. 
Finally at the very least we thought that if it was to be left up to the police to prosecute then they would need a reasonable amount of time to consider any prosecutions. The current version of the legislation says that prosecutions have to be undertaken within 6 months. We proposed an amendment that would give the police 2 years. But again Labour opposed this and again it failed to give us one single reason why it was a bad idea. The cynicism of this move to prevent any meaningful prosecutions under the new legislation would be extraordinary in itself if it was not overwhelmed by the nature of the process through which the legislation has been so cynically pushed. On the three big issues that were raised by this legislation—the position of third parties the regulated period and the definition of candidate advertisement—there have been no improvements. 
There is a donations regime in the legislation lauded by New Zealand First but it is muddled. It was hastily drafted in the latter stages of the select committee’s deliberations. If the Government had accepted the offer made by Mr English 12 months ago to talk about transparency and a sensible donations regime this legislation could have been greatly improved. 
This afternoon I pay tribute to Mr Dunne. I am pleased to see he has looked at the issue carefully and has listened to the concerns of members of the public. Clearly he has now read clause 5(1)(a)(ii). He now recognises that that subclause will shut down debate next year. But I am not quite so impressed by the Greens and the New Zealand First Party. The Greens like to portray themselves as innocents abroad but they too have been active participants in this shabby affair. They are as cynical and as unprincipled on this issue as Labour. They do not care about the damage this legislation will cause to our constitution. Let us look at the members of New Zealand First. Fresh from their Starship Children’s Health stunt they are now ignoring the message from their supporters in Tauranga who correctly see the threat that is posed by this legislation. 
The National Party has been accused of focusing too much on the interests of politicians but that is wrong. Take for example the phrase “third party”. We have said time and time again that that terminology is offensive. The people are the principals in the democratic process; the politicians are the servants. People may not want to join political parties as much as they did in earlier years but they may want to contribute to the political process by joining organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Greenpeace. The National Party recognises this. We did not want the term “third party”. We preferred the term “interested party” but that was voted down. 
So where to from here? Both my leader and deputy leader have given a commitment that National will repeal the legislation. The Labour Party has breached a well-established convention that electoral law should so far as possible be bipartisan or multipartisan. It will not be easy to reconstruct that convention but the National Party will do so because it is in the public interest that we go back to a situation where there is proper discussion between all parties on these very important issues. 
This has been a very sorry incident in New Zealand’s political history. The legislation will not endure. It will be repealed before the end of 2008 because the National Party will do the right thing in the public good and in the national interest. Much as one is tempted to exercise a little utu there will be no utu. The distinctions between the two major parties in this country are obvious. Under the leadership of Helen Clark Labour has become utterly negative. It likes banning things or people for its own sake. Its motto is: “Accentuate the negative; ban; boycott; embargo; exclude; vilify; blacklist; close down; shut up; silence; censure; hate; sneer.” But these are the things that come so naturally to Helen Clark and the other Labour Party wreckers and haters. They are the only things they know. As my leader said it is time for a change. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand to speak in support of the three bills arising from the Electoral Finance Bill. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee members from Labour the Green Party and New Zealand First for the constructive role that they played. Not only was it a constructive role but also they turned up to the committee meetings—they were there steadily. They did not have all and sundry there to represent their parties. They were consistent they turned up and they worked on the legislation. I also thank the staff and the advisers for all the hard work they did. It is very much appreciated. 
This legislation is a necessary response to an unprecedented abuse of our democratic processes. Prior to the 2005 election the National Party and its allies led a campaign designed to find loopholes in the rules—or simply to breach them—and to seek to overwhelm the election outcome with money. National introduced the continuous campaign to politics in this country seeking by enormous expenditure to expose the public to its paid message everywhere. Such behaviour put democracy in New Zealand at risk. Big anonymous money can never be permitted to shape thought in a democracy. This legislation allows the public to have confidence that the covert campaign to buy persuasion and influence will be very difficult to repeat. 
As documented by Nicky Hager the National Party accepted the support of and colluded with the Exclusive Brethren. It behaved in a similar fashion with the Maxim Institute with the so-called Fair Tax lobby and with extremely wealthy members of the Auckland business community. By accepting their contributions and colluding in the planning of campaigns and advertisements National subverted the spirit of our dearly held laws. It gained massive advantage over those parties that sought to campaign in the fair open and democratic manner that New Zealand citizens expect and deserve. Mercifully National failed to steal the election. 
This legislation regulates the role of third parties in that it requires them if they seek to campaign for or against candidates parties or combinations of both to be open about doing so. If they do campaign they are capped in their advertising expenditure at $120000. As part of National’s strategy trusts were used to cover up donations over the limit of $10000 at which they would otherwise have to be disclosed. This legislation regulates the use of trusts. Although those donations are not completely outlawed undue influence and abuse are countered by the introduction of caps on them. With this regime in place the public can be confident that influence is not for sale via donations. By extending the regulated period to the year of an election campaign the insidious influence of the continuous campaign which became a feature—a shameful feature—of our political landscape during the last election cycle can be avoided and a level playing field established. In order to prevent undue influence from outside New Zealand overseas donations are also regulated. We are a small democracy in a globalised world. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest foreign bidder. 
In summary this legislation provides solutions that further the cause of democracy through enhancing transparency and accountability. It enhances democracy by preventing the abuse of the democratic process. It takes a strong stand against the undue influence of money in politics. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in the Labour Party and with the Progressive party the Greens and New Zealand First in giving this legislation my strong support. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to join my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee who so ably steered this legislation through the select committee process in commending the merits of the legislation to the House. I praise her chairing; it was excellent chairing in the face of extremely provocative behaviour. I would also like to add my thanks to the officials who worked very hard to advise the committee to ensure that what came to the House as a result of the committee process was good legislation. In that regard I particularly thank Helena Catt and Michael Petherick from the Ministry of Justice. 
In my brief contribution to this third reading I want to look ahead. I have said that I endorse all the comments made by my colleague but I observe that this bill is clearly not the last step in the need to provide for a system that prevents abuses and upholds democracy. This is recognised in that from the outset the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Mark Burton—in a call that has been continued by the current Minister Annette King—was very clear that a review group ought to be commissioned to consider the matters that remain outside the scope of this legislation. Paramount amongst those matters must be the public funding of political parties. As the Wallace Commission found so many years ago this is an essential element in maintaining democracy in a country such as ours. Australia Canada and now even the UK—thanks to the work being done by Sir Haydon Phillips—have taken steps to implement such a system. We run the grave risk of exchanging our democracy for a plutocracy every moment that we continue to delay implementing a system of public funding for political parties. I sincerely hope that the review group to be established which has been called for along with this legislation right from the start will very clearly call for the public funding of parties repeating the call made by the Wallace Commission back in the 1980s. 
Absolute transparency is the other matter that the review group must address. Any participants in politics must be open about their participation in it. It is just too risky in the long term and in a globalised business environment to continue to tolerate anonymity on either the supply or the demand side of politics—whether from parties donors or other actors. No donor and no spender seeking to influence the outcome of an election should ever be allowed to hide its true identity from the public. Strict caps on spending—always under review for their adequacy—and ensuring that undue barriers to entry into the process do not exist are required. 
I hope that the review group also looks at incentives to a broad participation in politics. We need civics education in our schools. People should be empowered to be more conscious of their rights and obligations in and to our society. Elected public service is a virtue and it should be seen as such not denigrated by cynical actors in the political or media processes. The best people in our society should be proud to put themselves forward to contribute to the political process or in the campaigns of those who do. Wider and deeper participation in political parties and groups that support civil society can only enrich our nation. We fail to promote this at our ongoing peril. 
Finally strong enforcement of clear rules is vital. I look forward to the day when one single powerful independent agency administers all the aspects of New Zealand’s electoral law. It should determine electoral boundaries it should register all the participants in elections and it should monitor their activities for compliance including donations spending and decisions concerning breaches of the law. It should also have carriage of the rules relating to political broadcasting. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Where were you at the select committee? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Unlike the member who has just interjected I was not moonlighting making court appearances; I was at the select committee. I sincerely believe that this legislation is an important step on the way to a better democracy and the review of our electoral system is another one. If it is to be a success it must address the issues I have mentioned in this speech. I hope it will do so. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral Finance Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Bills read a third time. 
Adjournment 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do at its rising adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 12 February 2008 and that the sitting days in 2008 be as follows: 
February 12 13 14 19 20 and 21; 
March 4 5 6 11 12 13 18 19 and 20; 
April 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 and 17; 
May 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 28 and 29; 
June 17 18 19 24 25 and 26; 
July 1 2 3 22 23 24 29 30 and 31; 
August 5 6 7 26 27 and 28; 
September 2 3 4 9 10 and 11; 
and that the House do at its rising on Thursday 11 September 2008 adjourn until Tuesday 23 September 2008. 
I want to start with the traditional responsibility of the Leader of the House which is to thank all those who have contributed to the smooth functioning of this place over the last year. I thank you Mr Deputy Speaker Madam Speaker the two Assistant Speakers the Clerks of the House—we have had two this year David McGee who is now an Ombudsman and Mary Harris who is now confirmed as the new Clerk of the House. We have a female Speaker a female Clerk of the House and a female Prime Minister and some members may feel slightly threatened by that and potentially redundant if they are not careful. I also thank all the Assistant Clerks the clerks of select committees the Table Office staff messengers the security staff the secretaries the research units the ministerial staff and the rest of the very large number of people who work in this complex of buildings without whom it would not function at all. 
Part of this motion provides for the sitting timetable for next year. I have no doubt that some journalists—and maybe one or two characters opposite—will draw certain conclusions from the timetable. They should not do so. The election has to be held no later than I think it is 15 November and therefore a timetable has to be provided that can go to the latest possible point in relation to that election date. It is not to foreshadow when the election date must be because an adjournment motion still has to be moved at some point before the House can rise and subsequently be prorogued and dissolved. In this motion there are up to 23 weeks available for sitting before the general election has to be held. If a general election were held as late as 15 November there would be relatively limited time for sitting after the election before Christmas. 
By and large—and I may surprise people by saying this—this has been a very measured year in the House. There has been a certain level of hysteria over the last week or so—and some people got themselves very thoroughly excited—but the reality is that this House has sat under very little urgency in 2007. By historic standards there has been a very small amount of urgency indeed. A major legislative programme has been completed during this year. The reason for that I think is that MMP is slowly transforming the style of debate in this House in terms of reducing the amount of time spent on delaying tactics on relatively non-controversial or non-controversial legislation. As a result a great deal of legislation even more than in the past is going through relatively quickly and a small number of pieces of legislation are being concentrated on for a great deal of attention. That means it is possible to complete a legislative programme with considerably less urgency than would have been required 5 years ago certainly 10 years ago and even more 20 years ago when the House sat under considerable amounts of urgency. 
I particularly note the passing of the Income Tax Act—the largest statute on the books inevitably. We are the only developed country to succeed in completely revising its income tax legislation. Many other countries have tried but none has actually succeeded in doing that. I also note that the new electronic system will finally be going live some time over the summer vacation—not on time and certainly not within budget. I have to say that somewhat unwillingly as Minister of Finance. That will raise some interesting questions for future Parliaments about whether we should adopt the procedures of some legislatures around the world where the electronic version of statutes is now the authoritative version of the statute. The reason being that it is very much easier to update the electronic version with amendments and to produce a clean copy for people to use as opposed to something that looks a bit like the leftovers from the fish and chip wrapping of older statutes with little bits of paper tacked in all over them and where one tries to work out what the statute is actually saying. 
To turn to the wider political scene the year has been marked by a number of very strong characteristics. The most important is a continuation of economic growth—the longest strongest phase of economic growth in over 30 years in New Zealand. Even the Business Roundtable is starting to wonder whether in fact this can continue—this kind of death-defying gravity-defying act where against all principles of the far right the economy continues to grow despite not adopting any of the far right’s policies. It has been a year in which we have seen significant business taxation reform with legislation passed to cut the corporate tax rate—the first significant cut in that rate since the mid-1980s. Indeed as I pointed out to someone ungently earlier last week I cannot find a year in which the National Party in office ever cut the corporate tax rate—and I have gone back 40 years in the records to discover that. The National Party is great in Opposition promising things that never seem to happen when it is in Government. 
It was a year in which we also introduced major charities tax reform by lifting the cap on charitable donations—something which New Zealand First took somewhat amiss and misinterpreted in some recent activities in that respect. But I notice that when the National Party did not pay back its GST it gave it to a charity if I remember rightly. That might be why Mr Key was so careful in his response to what Mr Peters was actually proposing in that particular regard. It was a year in which we saw both the launch of KiwiSaver and massive enhancements to it and now we have probably something like 350000 New Zealanders signed up to KiwiSaver. And still today in a specially called press conference the Leader of the Opposition could not tell us what the National Party policy was on KiwiSaver. I think he is counting slowly until he gets to the point where he decides that he will have to do another U-turn in that regard. 
It was a year in which the Government announced its plans for an emissions trading scheme—the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme being introduced by any country in the developed world. It was a year in which sustainability came to the fore in terms of economic policy and supporting policies. It was a year in which we passed 350000 new jobs since this Government came into office at the end of 1999. It was a year in which the participation rate in the labour force continued to be maintained at very high rates—very high rates by New Zealand standards but also very high rates by the standards of any other developed economy. We maintained the fifth lowest unemployment rate in the developed world. It was a year in which we saw the number of people on the unemployment benefit drop to less than one-eighth of what it was when we became the Government only 8 years ago. 
It was a year in which the National Party the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and a few others colluded to mount a campaign against 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Eighty-three percent of 3-year-old to 4-year-old children are now in that 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Steve Maharey is the man whose fingerprints are all over that policy and he will carry it with him to his new job as vice-chancellor of Massey University. I have to tell him that we have no plans for 20 hours’ free education at Massey University; they will not get that one out of the next term of the Labour-led Government. It was a year in which we have now completed the provision of more than 5000 additional teachers over and above roll growth since we became the Government. It was a year in which we introduced major tertiary education reforms and only the Southland Institute of Technology seems to be really upset. It was a year in which we developed a major skills strategy to be released soon. It was a year in which we have seen significant improvements in literacy and numeracy achievement at primary schools. 
It was a year in which we have completed cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper pharmaceuticals. It was a year in which we have seen elective surgery up in hips knees and cataracts and in which we have seen a continuation of a major hospital building programme. We have seen the introduction of 4 weeks’ annual leave actually coming into force and extensions to paid parental leave. And it has been a year I have to say of major progress in Treaty negotiations made on the foundations laid by yourself Madam Speaker and by the Hon Mark Burton. Next year we will have a programme of tax cuts for the next term of Parliament that will address the issues around fairness in that regard. 
I will finish on one small minor note. I have been listening to this debate over the electoral finance legislation and I have to say that I have never heard so much codswallop from the Opposition in all my life. I particularly enjoyed Mr Finlayson’s speech just now when he said we must have a bipartisan approach on this legislation and if National were the Government it would repeal it before Christmas. I do not know whether he thought about that before he made that statement—no select committee no consultation with any Opposition parties. No it will go before Christmas he said. 
I just want to touch on this issue of money spent under the Parliamentary Service. I hold in my hand a box of chocolates. I will table this box of chocolates. It says “Best wishes from Gerry Brownlee MP Ilam Christchurch.” and it has on it the parliamentary crest. I want to know whether Gerry Brownlee is using taxpayers’ money to give out free chocolates to the people of New Zealand. If so why have I not received a box of chocolates from the member? Why have the members on this side of the House not received their boxes of chocolates? I seek leave to table Gerry Brownlee’s box of chocolates and I invite the Table staff to eat them subsequently. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take the opportunity to explain to the Deputy Prime Minister that had I given him the box of chocolates I would be terribly fearful he would want to kiss me. 
Chocolates by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That speech from the Deputy Prime Minister was remarkable on several fronts. It lacked any of the one-liners vitriol grunt or vigour that we normally hear from the Deputy Prime Minister—and frankly it lacked anyone from the Labour Party listening to it. There is no one there. They have packed up and gone for the year. They did not realise we were coming back on Tuesday. 
As is traditional at this time of the year I take this opportunity to thank you Madam Speaker and thank all those who make this Parliament function the way it does. Madam Speaker I rely on you for your sense of humour at times and for your indulgence. I thank the Deputy Speaker Clem Simich and the Assistant Speakers Ross Robertson and Ann Hartley. I thank the Clerk of the House Mary Harris and I congratulate her on her new job. I acknowledge the great work of David McGee when he was previously in that role. I thank the select committee staff; the  
Hansard 
 reporters who I am sure have much joy in writing down what we say more joy than we do sometimes when we read it back; the Parliamentary Library staff; the Parliamentary Service staff; the travel staff and the security guards; the messengers; the VIP transport staff; the Bellamy’s staff; and my colleagues who pound for pound are the best political team by some margin in the country. I thank my staff—my life would not operate properly without them—Emma who looks after me all the time Wayne Kevin Grant Nicola Phil Sarah Rhiannon and anybody else I have forgotten. 
The year of 2007 has been a good year for National and 2008 will be a great year for National and New Zealand. That is more than we can say for Labour which is rapidly becoming about as popular as a Japanese whaling vessel in the Southern Ocean. That is hardly surprising because the only thing that spends more time in the dock than a New Zealand frigate is a Labour Party Cabinet Minister. They are there all the time. Some months ago we announced a policy that we wanted DNA testing for convicted criminals. I have decided we should drop that and just jot down their Bellamy’s account number—that would be a lot easier. 
This is a Government that is unravelling before New Zealanders’ eyes. We have Ministers who are publicly disagreeing with each other. We have a Government that has become so arrogant that it is arrogant to the marrow. We are seeing people leaving the Labour Party left right and centre. We have a Government that will do anything and say anything to win an election. We know one thing: Labour thinks it is everybody else’s fault but its own. That is the interesting thing. The Labour members do not get the mirror out very often. They have spent years blaming the National Party and now they have moved to blaming the officials. It is the officials’ fault that New Zealanders do not go into Christmas with a tax cut despite the fact that Michael Cullen once famously said of Treasury: “I’m elected and they’re not.” That is what he said but now it is the officials’ fault. He says it is the officials’ fault that people will maybe get only a $15 tax cut under Labour after almost a decade of a Labour Government—if Labour gets that chance. Of course if the polls go down a little bit more then the tax cuts will go up. 
Last week according to the Prime Minister it was the media’s fault. She said the two senior political editors on both TV channels are too young to understand history. That is the reason: too young to understand history. I predict that by next year Labour members will have moved on and it will be someone else’s fault. It will be the voters’ fault by next year. That is whose fault it will be. 
All the time the Labour members are not really worried about what is going on with the big issues. They do not care about the 750 Kiwis who leave every week for Australia. They are not bothered about the fact that there have been no tax cuts for 8 years. They do not care about a failing health system or a failing education system. They do not care about any of those things. They do not even care that much about the 14 finance companies that have gone broke the four interest rate hikes the Government has delivered to New Zealanders this year or that when we look at how much New Zealanders’ wages have gone up then take off inflation take off interest rates and take off rising prices we see that New Zealanders have gone backwards over 8 years. The Government just does not care. 
Next year Helen Clark wants to win a fourth term but not because of what that power will actually achieve. Helen Clark wants another trophy in the trophy cabinet. She wants to buy just one more election. That is all she wants. If she can buy one more election she can keep Phil Goff out of the leadership for just a little bit longer—that is what she wants. The National Party wants a step change for New Zealand. According to Labour and Michael Cullen success is to be despised. That is the message from Michael Cullen—success is meant to be despised. How interesting that is when one contrasts it with the National Party. The National Party is out there promoting a DVD at the moment called  
Ambitious for New Zealand 
. That is what we are and New Zealanders absolutely love it. There are 20000 downloads on YouTube and on our own site. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How many? 
JOHN KEY 
: There are 20000 downloads. Let me say that we had one small problem with the DVD. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves do we not? Last year I said the Government is a Walkman Government in an iPod world. Actually it is not; it is a video Government in a DVD world and next year it will get clocked big time. That is what will happen to it next year. 
When one looks at the year Labour has had and looks at the problems one really wonders when the people will work out who is to blame. It is Helen Clark but I will come back to her in a minute. Is it not an interesting culture that has developed under Labour? Just last week we picked up the  
Dominion Post 
 and on the front page was a story that the Capital and Coast District Health Board which had a cash crisis was going to sack 50 doctors—not 50 bureaucrats but under Labour sack 50 doctors. This is a country where crime is recorded on a time-line basis in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. This is a country where the bail laws see New Zealanders out on bail despite the fact they are charged with horrendous crimes. Under Labour they are fit to be back on the streets. This is a country that did not go up in the OECD; it went down. This is a country that will go into Christmas with the Government’s wallet fat but with New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet struggling to afford the niceties of Christmas and struggling to get any further ahead. This is a country where one in five New Zealanders leaves school completely lacking literacy and numeracy skills and where one in two Maori boys and girls completely lacks any qualification at all. In the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the Prime Minister stated that she was shocked that over 300000 New Zealanders could not read the instructions on a fire extinguisher. 
All of this leads us to a Government that has spent the entire year worried about the Labour Party worried about its own Ministers who are constantly in trouble and worried about itself. It is so desperate to stay in power that it has had to force through the electoral finance legislation. It has not been good. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Oh come on John we’ve got 10 minutes left. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am happy to take an extra 10 minutes if the Labour Party wants me to. I do not think a Leader of the Opposition with as much material as I have should be limited to 10 minutes but if Phil Goff wants to give up some time there is no problem—I am happy to take it. It is all getting so bad that the last time Phil Goff was spotted was at the BBQ Factory on Sunday night. He saw the polls he headed off to the BBQ Factory he whipped down to The Mad Butcher and he said “My time will come. The waiting waiting waiting is finally over.” 
I do not have a lot of time left to talk about the great things that the National Party will do next year. I have a whole year next year to talk about those things. I want to say what a great year 2007 has been for National in New Zealand and what a cracker 2008 will be. Merry Christmas. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker before I get to the subject could I just extend my party’s appreciation to you the Deputy Speaker Clem Simich and Assistant Speakers Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson the outgoing Clerk of the House Dave McGee the new Clerk Mary Harris her staff in the Office of the Clerk the select committee personnel library staff the people at Bellamy’s the  
Hansard 
 writers the security and parliamentary travel staff the VIP Transport Service drivers my colleagues and our families and of course the messengers who keep this place going. 
I can recall when there was a woman called Shipley leading the National Party and they used to clap her. Then they had a man called Bill English leading the National Party very recently and they used to clap him. 
Ron Mark 
: They are the same people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh the same people! Then they had a man called Don Brash leading the National Party and they started to clap him. That is three so when I hear the fourth person being clapped I do not get carried away or get too excited. Madam Speaker if you will give me some indulgence I wish to quote words from a song made popular by a group called Talking Heads: 
Well we know where we’re goin’  
But we don’t know where we’ve been 
And we know what we’re knowin’ 
But we can’t say what we’ve seen 
And we’re not little children 
And we know what we want 
And the future is certain 
Give us time to work it out. 
Who does that remind us of? I say that 2008 is going to be a year of disclosure and we believe it is time to work out what the National Party stands for. Democracies need alternative policies. It is the essence of a democracy because for the first time in the history of our parliamentary democracy there is a party that does not know where it is where it has been does not know where it is going and does not know what to do when it gets there. When the member came to the end of his speech he said: “Oh I’ll deal with that next year.” He got to the last half of his speech and he said he could have gone on for ever but he had not started on that part of the speech at that point in time.  
The National Party wants to be the Government but does not say why. What do those people stand for? Tell me one policy that it has come up with in the last year—just one policy. Tell me one policy that would make the world or New Zealand a better place—just one policy. I look at the National members and even they cannot answer me; even they cannot answer the question. I ask them to name one policy they have advocated in 2007 that will help anybody in our country. I cannot hear a word.  
Hon Member 
: Tax cuts. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do not say tax cuts; what percent? They do not know. No one knows. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You first. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Please do not tell me that getting rid of Don Brash counts. That is not a policy. That was a wise decision but it is not a policy. Firing Gerry Brownlee from the deputy leadership is not a policy. It is a sound move but it is not a policy. In fact it harmed his family so that is not a very constructive policy. So it should be a special project of this Parliament next year to find out what the National Party stands for and what it wants to do. It is time for questions to be asked and answers to be given. New Zealanders have a right to know. 
The National Party is like an octopus with tentacles spread throughout society and its institutions. Mind you it is not as big as it used to be; it once had under Holyoake 245000 members. Today it is just big business and cash. It has a very small party membership just big business and cash. But this week we learnt to our dismay that some of those individuals will place personal politics above everything. Some weeks ago we offered to donate some money to a children’s hospital. The background was fully explained over weeks. We went through all the details the reasons and everything else. The money was given and accepted in good faith and everyone was acting in good faith including the woman at Starship Children’s Health. And then out of the woodwork came a voice and name from the past—Mr Bryan Mogridge from the murky waters of the National Party and the Tourism Board. He made a unilateral decision to give the money back. Did he hold a board meeting with the Starship hospital board? No he did not. Members should ask themselves this question: he is a man who heads a board and apparently he does not know what the staff are doing over many many weeks. I would fire a man like that because it shouts incompetence. I would fire somebody like that who comes back from overseas and does not know what has been going on while he has been away. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: He’s a National Party man. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: A National Party man oh yes. He is a good mate of Murray McCully. He had the audacity to challenge New Zealand First’s philanthropic views. Well let me tell the House about Mr Mogridge. He tried to keep an illegal payment of $200000 from the Tourism Board courtesy of his mate Murray McCully. 
Hon Members 
: Ah! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Ah yes! When I heard that name I thought: “That rings a bell. There is a certain smell about that name.” Then in a burst of generosity Mr Mogridge agreed to accept half that amount—$100000—but this payment had to be tax-free. 
Hon Members 
: Ah! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Ah yes! This Dale Carnegie of the hospital board kept it tax-free but that is not all. He wanted his legal bills $30000 paid as well. I am sorry but it sounds like Mr Mogridge should resign. It sounds like he has done his organisation in. It is a magnificent organisation but we remember him very very well. 
But how typical: he is overseas this donation is made the National Party contacts him and all of a sudden forget the poor children forget the halt and the lame and the maimed and the suffering and those kids who need operations to fix themselves up and all the research. They could not give a tinker’s damn as long as they could stop someone doing their duty because it might embarrass them. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It’s the truth. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is the truth all right. Just like that! New Zealand First has had a great year. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes we have. Up in Tauranga piles are going across the harbour; a new bridge is being built which is the envy of Christchurch Auckland and Wellington. It all happened because we said we would keep our word. I saw “Bob the Builder” try to take credit for that himself. All Bob can do is fight off a whole lot of nominees—young lawyers out of Auckland and everywhere—who want to take him on because they reckon he is hopeless. Thank God they have had a chance to work that out. Name one thing Bob has done other than sell his white-elephant stadium back to the council so it has to pay for it. It needed 35 nights to be full before it could be paid for and when he realised he could not fill it he flogged it back to the council. The poor ratepayers have to pick up this white elephant. 
Bob as in the film  
The Shawshank Redemption 
 even made himself seem magnanimous while he did it. I say: “Ha ha! Sorry Bob; I got the due diligence. Next year you’re going to find out exactly what you did.” The first thing we did of course was to keep our word. We built a bridge we got a better deal for superannuitants the minimum wage is being increased we brought in extra police to fight crime we poured another $400 million into elder care the racing industry is awash with optimism and ad excitement. It is all happening. Those members know that that is the truth. There is one more promise we have kept. The SuperGold card is taking off. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: 2.2 percent. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We will do in 1 year what it took 15 years to do in Queensland. I say to National that they can laugh now but let them wait for the 2008 Budget and cry later. We have also stemmed the flow of social engineering. We have done hundreds of things unlike Tau Henare opposite who has not done a darn thing all year. I bet he has not been to one clinic. 
Ron Mark 
: He welshed on Brian Connell. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh that is right. He has done one thing: he welshed on Brian Connell who was the one guy who stood up in the caucus and said: “Hey the leader is not a good man. He should go.” What happened? They fired Brian and kept the leader on. But eventually— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They are having a rerun for MPs in Rakaia. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes just one thing before I sit down. I am glad that our disclosure in the House last week about Rakaia has seen the National Party forced to reopen the nominations so David Carter could not buy his way into the nomination in Rakaia. Just like that! I say to the National Party people in Rakaia who wrote to me: “Come on; come the next election pay it back in your second vote.” That is what transference is all about. 
I want to finish by saying to all my parliamentary colleagues good and bad loud and intellectual and even Tau Henare to have a happy Christmas and a good January 2008 because when they get back they will need to have had a decent holiday because there is a war on and it is called “the people’s interest versus your elitist ones”. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are still several party leaders who are to speak to this motion and the Labour Party and National Party have an additional speaker as well. We have consulted the other parties and on that basis I would seek leave for the House to continue sitting beyond 6 p.m. and then to lift once this motion before the House has been put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection so that course will be followed. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The year 2007 has been a great year for the Greens. It has been a year of achievement rather than bravado filibustering or pointless points of order. And I am proud of the fact that we have had a record number of members’ bills in front of the House this year. Three of them have passed into law in just one year. With those three bills we have given young workers the dignity of equal pay for equal work with older people. We have given workers juggling work with responsibilities as carers the right to seek flexible working hours. We have changed the law to make it unacceptable to beat children. 
We have five more bills still before the House. The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill which has the support of the Government and select committee is the first ever bill in this Parliament to deal with the 1 tonne a year of waste that every man woman child and baby produces in this country. We have a bill that will strengthen the bonds between mothers in prison and their babies—a powerful influence to prevent reoffending. We have a bill to allow people in chronic pain to avoid the pharmaceuticals that have awful side effects or do not work and to take instead medically prescribed cannabis where the doctor believes that is the most appropriate medicine. We have two bills on climate change. One of those is to reinstate greenhouse gas emissions in the Resource Management Act which should never have been removed from it when considering air-discharge consents. We also have a bill on transport funding still awaiting its first reading to enable us to change the balance of spending to go to a more sustainable transport system with less money going on new motorways and more on alternatives to roading. 
Under our cooperation agreement with the Government we have led the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which is making the homes of New Zealanders warmer and healthier and our vehicles much more fuel-efficient is improving our alternatives to cars like public transport and cycling and is expanding the use of solar water heating. Our Buy Kiwi Made programme has inspired New Zealanders with TV and print ads to support and nurture our local manufacturing businesses and their workers. We have secured budget funding for environmental education and organics advisory services for healthier food in schools and for increased overseas aid. And we have secured an independent prison inspectorate. I cannot say that the Greens are punching above their weight these days because we must not use such violent metaphors but there is no doubt at all that our six MPs have contributed way beyond our numbers. We have received multiple awards in the last few weeks for politicians and backbenchers of the year as we have in some previous years. 
Most important we are changing the culture of politics. When I came here 11 years ago the environment let alone climate change was hardly mentioned in Parliament. It was a struggle to find any opportunity to raise those issues. Now they are on everyone’s lips. The repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act was bitterly contested in the House and in the community. Now the balance of public opinion is that it is wrong to beat kids and there are much better ways of disciplining them and helping them grow up to be good citizens. There is now a greater tolerance of personal lifestyles and relationships which are nobody else’s business and we have contributed to that. 
We have shown that the MMP parties despite their very different policies can work together to challenge behaviour in the House to develop shared codes of conduct to stop a massive eyesore on the Auckland waterfront and to get repeal of anachronistic sedition laws. We have stood up along with only the Maori Party and ACT against the Bush agenda of terrorism suppression laws that seriously suppress our civil rights. We have condemned police tactics of invading homes and communities with armed officers when there is no real evidence in many of those homes of any offending and there have been no charges laid. We have stood up for the right of people in New Zealand not to be imprisoned indefinitely without charge and worked for the eventual release of Ahmed Zaoui who was held at the behest of other countries without a shred of evidence of intended harm to our community. 
We have continued to challenge the assumption that our oil-devouring way of life can continue unchecked the assumption that we will need more vehicles more roads and to attract more international tourists when all the evidence is that the era of cheap oil is over. We have documented and graphed the absurd predictions of oil prices where for 4 years Government agencies have forecast price reductions when in fact prices have just continued to rise. Even today in the half-year Economic and Fiscal Update Treasury again predicts a price collapse for oil based on the same futures market that has been so wrong for so many years. 
We are looking forward to another great Green year in 2008. We will continue to show the way to real sustainability while the Government takes delivery of its new ministerial cars with a fuel efficiency that hugely exceeds its own standards for other people. We will continue to challenge the Government to stop subsidising the coal industry by not requiring it to meet the cost of its coal seam methane emissions under the emissions trading scheme and to stop subsidising the dairy industry by exempting its greenhouse emissions for 5 whole years. We will challenge the Government to clean up our polluted waterways. We will challenge it to put in place a proper strategy for peak oil. We will continue to campaign on food safety and on the consumers’ right to know with country-of-origin labelling laws. 
We look forward to the passing of our Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill the equivalent in its effect to the first Green members’ legislation the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act passed in 2000. We look forward to the passing of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and our two climate change bills. And we look forward to returning here towards the end of the year with an increased number of MPs so that we can do even more in the next Parliament. 
Madam Speaker may I thank you on behalf of all the Greens for your management of the House this year and wish you the Deputy Speaker the Assistant Speakers and all members a restorative holiday and the enjoyment of family and friends. I thank my extremely hard-working and committed Green colleagues our amazing staff who go far beyond the call of duty and all those who support us in this place: the Clerk’s Office with particular congratulations to Mary Harris on her new appointment the library the travel office the messengers the cleaners who come in at the dead of night and the Bellamy’s staff. I wish all of you the joys of a Christmas season not cluttered with stuff and frantic consumption but blessed with the people you love and the places you treasure. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. As we cast our memory back over this last year we think of those especially in Maoridom who have passed away. They include the Most Rev. WhakahuihuiVercoe the legendary activist Syd Jackson cherished kuia of Te Arawa waka Witarina Te MiriarangiParewahaika Harris veteran actor Don Selwyn Atareta Maxwell a kapa haka expert and many more loved leaders and whanau members. We think also of our Pasifika whanaunga who still grieve for the loss of their late Prime Minister Sir Thomas Davis PaTuterangi Ariki of the Cook Islands and of course the head of State of Samoa SusugaMalietoaTanumafili. There are many more who fill our thoughts and who have left their mark on various members of this House. 
But this year 2007 is also a year of horrific deaths of children and young people. There has been a loss of lives cut short by violence by street fighting and by savage and senseless assaults on humanity. We remember those who have suffered in such brutal violence and we say we must all make an ongoing commitment that their lives were not in vain. The Maori Party supports the people in this House in that area. We make a stand not only in our speeches but also in our activities outside of the House to restore whanau and families so that they can come and support each other especially where a violent member is identified in their family. It has not been an easy time with all the violence around but at least everyone in this House is on the same track. I would like to acknowledge Sue Bradford’s courage in respect of the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act and to acknowledge all those who contributed to the final form of the legislation when it was passed. 
Also this year there was activity in Australia that Hone Harawira exposed to the world when the Howard regime imposed its own activity on the Aborigines. It has been a year in which the Taser was called a lethal weapon by Amnesty International and it called for the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police to think about withdrawing that weapon. But I guess that one of the most traumatic things that have happened for Maori this year has been what they have called “Black Monday” 15 October in the Tuhoe community. That was a day when Ruatoki was turned inside out by a police campaign of terror a day in which the nation was brought to fear that bush survival camps tribal wananga etc. were terrorist activities. 
Other events other crises of confidence have shaped this year in our reflections as the Maori Party. We think of a lot of errors in the settlement process especially in the Te Arawa settlement and in the Tamaki-makau-rau one—the adverse impact of overlapping claims and the way in which the Government has been able to play favourites in making choices. It has made decisions in isolation based on at times inadequate information and generally acted in ways that breached the principles and duties imposed by the Treaty relationship. Other claims are coming in the future—the future Crown forestry claim and the Wai 262 flora and fauna claim. Those issues will no doubt come to light next year and of course the big question will be what will happen to the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill? Will it be the first settlement bill not to be passed by this House? 
This year 2007 was also a year in which the Government felt the might of the Maori Party with regard to the performance of Landcorp in trying to sell some of its land and on the lack of consultation with Maori over fishing issues especially over the shared fisheries programme. 
But there have been many moments of joy and events of enormous significance to Parliament as we have seen MMP in action. We have witnessed the strength of the MMP parties with ACT the Greens United Future and the Maori Party working together to establish a code of conduct for all members of Parliament. We saw the archaic laws on sedition disappear from the statute book as a direct outcome of four MMP parties raising the heat. And we also appreciated the impact we could make on other legislation such as the births deaths and relationships policy. The Maori Party celebrates all those initiatives. We acknowledge too the varying degrees of interest that both National and Labour have expressed in working with us this year and we have every confidence that that interest will no doubt increase in the next 12 months. 
Madam Speaker the Maori Party congratulates you on your management your wisdom and your leadership in the House. We acknowledge too the expert assistance of your able team: Deputy Speaker Clem Simich and Assistant Speakers Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson. We have a whakatauaki in te Ao Maori that is key to this adjournment debate: “E haratakutoai te toatakitahiengari he toatakitini.” Those words attributed to Tuhotoariki remind us that our strength is not as individuals but is as a collective effort. As our rangatahi would say: “True that!” 
We come every day to this House knowing there is an invisible swarm of bees that makes up the sweet honey and we recognize the talents and consistent dedication of our Parliamentary Library staff who make our speeches sound so wise and our korero so intelligent. We think of the Office of the Clerk which keeps us on track and is always there to remind us of what we can and cannot do. We particularly congratulate Mary Harris—kia ora Mary—who has taken on the enormous legacy left by David McGee. We are delighted with this appointment which recognizes the many talents and the institutional expertise that Mary brings to the role of Clerk of the House. We acknowledge the legal eagles who helped us to draft two members’ bills put forward by Maori Party MPs and a raft of Supplementary Order Papers. Their proficiency and professionalism have been demonstrated in the quality of the two members’ bills we have on the Order Paper: Tariana Turia’s bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act and Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill to ensure that former owners of Maori or even general land taken or acquired by the Crown for the purposes of public works are given first right of refusal to purchase that land. 
We thank the interpreters—kia ora bro—for their support and expertise and also the ever-enthusiastic messengers out there and the reception staff who keep us in such good communication with the constant stream of supporters and whanaunga who come through the rubber door. We understand the pressure of the role that our security staff face every day and the demands placed upon the cleaners the building staff and the information technology helpdesk—the many people who keep this place humming. We thank the drivers of the VIP cars—oh no we do not have any; that is right sorry—and of course we know that our team is the envy of this Chamber: our one researcher our one media adviser our one chief of staff and each one of our executive assistants. We know that our electorates are in fine shape because of the incredible commitment of our teams out there and that we are only ever as good as our amazing membership our dedicated president and our awesome party structure. It is very humbling to be part of the mighty Maori Party and we know every day the absolute privilege we have in bringing an independent Maori voice to this Chamber. 
Finally we mihi to each and every one of the honourable members of this House—kia ora koutou—and through them to all the New Zealanders who place their trust in us in the people of Parliament. We have an amazing opportunity to make a difference to the lives of the people who call Aotearoa - New Zealand home. It is our calling it is our responsibility and it must be our greatest commitment together to bring about the changes necessary to truly do our best to leave a legacy our mokopuna our grandchildren can be proud of. We extend to all members our respect and our best wishes for a very restful break with their whanau and loved ones and say “Roll on 2008!”. Kia ora koutou; MeriKirihimete. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I begin by congratulating you and your fellow presiding officers on your year of stewardship over the House in sometimes difficult and testing times but always with strength and dignity and a quality we admire. I acknowledge too and congratulate Mary Harris on her appointment as the new Clerk of the House of Representatives. I think you will honour that role Mary and I look forward to working with you over the next few years. 
I pay tribute to all of the staff: messengers security people Bellamy’s people library staff the information technology people our secretarial staff and the myriad of other people around this building who help to make it function. I acknowledge the contribution they make during the course of the year. I acknowledge too the work of my own office: my immediate political staff my departmental seconded staff my party staff my departmental officials and the others who have helped to make it possible for me to function effectively this year—my out-of-Parliament staff my regional staff and so on. 
I pay a special tribute to my deputy Judy Turner for her loyalty consistency and friendship and for her warmth and calming advice in so many stressful situations. Judy you are a treasure and you are a treasure to this Parliament and this country and I appreciate being able to count you as a friend and a colleague. 
This has been an extraordinary year. United Future has had its ups and downs but despite the fact that we are somewhat diminished in size we are actually better for it and very happy to have been through the process we have because we were able to reassert ourselves as a genuine centre party and not be sidetracked by other issues as we might have been previously. 
It has also been a year in which United Future has been able to make very significant progress. The business tax review which the Minister of Finance referred to earlier on arose as a direct consequence of the United Future confidence and supply agreement. I was very proud as Minister of Revenue to bring in the legislation that gives New Zealand business its first tax cut since the heady days of Roger Douglas in the 1980s. I was proud also to deliver on our promise of removing the cap on charitable donations in order to make that a much more attractive proposition. I was proud too to see that we are moving down the path of introducing a payroll-giving system. 
I was delighted to work with my colleagues in the Green Maori and ACT parties and occasionally with my friends from New Zealand First on other issues. I think about our joint press conference and the action we succeeded in bringing to bear on the repeal of the sedition laws. I think about the work we did on a code of conduct and I will be making some announcements in the next few days in relation to my annual list about how parliamentarians have behaved. I will be reflecting on how that list might have been different had everyone in this Parliament signed up to that code of conduct. But I know that that is something Madam Speaker has an interest in and I am sure we will have more discussion about it in the future. 
A lot has been said about the political year 2007 and at this late stage of it I do not propose to rehearse too many of those arguments. Everyone says at the end of every year what an extraordinary year it has been—“It has been one of the longest and toughest I can remember.”—but I suspect that that is more a reflection of our ageing process than of the challenges we face. But this year has had some particular aspects to it that were unusual. We have had two very high-profile public debates on issues quite varied from the one we have just dealt with in terms of electoral finance and earlier in the year it was the issue of the smacking of children. 
What concerns me at the end of this year—and I will just inject a moment of seriousness into this debate for a little while—about both of those debates is not so much the issues themselves but the way in which we as a country now seem to handle those issues. Everything seems to be a crisis these days. Reason has gone out of the window. Common sense and a quiet persuasive way of dealing with issues is secondary to seeing everything as being the greatest crisis to befall our nation at this particular time. Opinions become remarkably polarised abuse flies and argument rationality and debate go out the window. I suspect with a great deal of concern that as we embark upon election year next year we will see that trend become more and more entrenched and it is bad. It is bad for our Parliament it is bad for our people and it is bad for our country. We ought to be able to engage in good healthy debate that is about issues but we have to get away from seeing everything as being the greatest crisis for Western civilisation that is imaginable. 
The media has a part to play in this. The march to sensationalism—this determination to trump the other outlet by making one’s version of the story bigger bolder and greater than everyone else’s—is contributing a lot to this. So much more is coming also from this vastly improved web of international and internal communication we have but I do not think that as a people we are any better for it because we have lost our capacity to listen we have lost our capacity to engage and we are in danger of losing our capacity to debate. As we embark upon election year next year with all of the issues that that will give rise to my earnest plea is that we just think a little bit about reason. 
I note that this is not just limited to New Zealand. I recommend to members that if they want to do a little serious reading alongside the light holiday stuff over the next few weeks then they should read Al Gore’s latest book  
The Assault on Reason 
 because that really sets out a lot of these arguments in a very compelling way. It brings the issues that we all care about back to a respective philosophical base and I think that all of us need to think about that as we embark upon the election campaign next year. 
But before that happens a lot more will happen. There is the festivity of Christmas there is the time with family and friends and there is the ability to unwind to relax to relive the great battles of this year—always with the glory that we put on them after the event—and just to recharge the batteries. As members do so I invite them to reflect upon one thing: we will have a longer summer this year because United Future working with Mark Holmes from the Nelson City Council was instrumental in having daylight saving hours extended. So those summer barbecues—and I heard reference made to Mr Goff’s plans a little earlier—will be able to occur with greater frequency. With the La Niña weather pattern around I am sure that there will be more stability and long evenings for the conversation the plotting and all of the encouragement that goes on around them. 
As we come to the end of this year it simply remains for me to wish every member of the House a very happy Christmas and a peaceful time with family and friends. Believe it or not I enjoy most members’ company most of the time—my good friend Mr Harawira over there springs to mind immediately. We have our differences but I think one of the things that marks this country out as great and marks this Parliament out as special is that there is a bond between us. We can actually talk and joke and move on to the next issue without holding any long-term grudges. So Madam Speaker I offer my best wishes to you and I offer my best wishes to my fellow members of the House. I wish everyone good luck for the festive season and may 2008 bring each and every one of us our true and just desserts. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is Christmas which is a wonderful time for everyone but it is a particularly wonderful time to be a New Zealander. Let me begin by congratulating you Madam Speaker. The Speaker often has a tough time in the House but you have had an especially tough time in dealing with the wake of the Auditor-General’s report and in achieving major change and hopefully the change in the way MPs are financed will continue. The work that you have done on that matter often goes unrecognised and is not thanked because it goes on behind the scenes. I know having observed it up close how difficult it is. I want to put on record our sincere thanks for the hard work you have done and for the good cheer with which you have done it while working and trying to achieve a consensus with all the parties on something that touches us in a manner that is near and dear. So I thank you for that Madam Speaker. 
I also thank all the messengers and the Serjeant-at-Arms who amazingly stay awake right through to the wee hours of the night sometimes through the most dreary speeches when MPs cannot. I thank the messengers for the good cheer with which they go about their job and for making our job so much easier. I thank the clerks. I especially thank the security guards who again show such good cheer towards us as MPs. I might add that they have such great discretion in the way in which they keep what they see and observe—particularly on the video cameras now—to themselves because I think it is a better Parliament for the fact that some things stay out of the public arena. I also thank the library staff who work assiduously to prepare material for each and every one of us. 
I thank everyone but I especially thank the MMP parties because I think we are achieving something that is new. I think most particularly of the ACT party and the Green Party. We disagreed with the Green Party’s position—in fact with most of Parliament’s position—on the smacking legislation. We were able to disagree with Sue Bradford and the Greens on that and still be able to disagree with good cheer and be able to work together. I feel prouder about that than I do about anything we have achieved in this House this year. Hopefully we showed the way in which we can disagree on policies and not descend to personal attacks to questioning people’s motives and to saying that people are stupid ignorant or do not understand the issue. We were still able to stand up for our position explain our position let the other party speak for its position and then have the vote. I think we would have a much better Parliament and a much better country if the other parties could take a small leaf out of the book on the approach of United Future New Zealand First—sometimes—the Green Party the Maori Party and the ACT party to debating the issue rather than the person. 
In reflecting on this year I particularly thank Minister Lianne Dalziel for her help and work on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill about which I have to say again the ACT party is very proud of the progress we are making. I thank Gerry Brownlee who has been chairing that Commerce Committee in a bipartisan way and who is doing a good job in respect of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I thank Maryan Street who helped us with that bill when she was on the committee and now Paul Swain Gordon Copeland and also Richard Worth and Lindsay Tisch. 
It is hard sometimes when a party has just two MPs but to have a bill of such magnitude and importance which aims to get a better legislative framework by which laws travel through this House and become the law is important. I think we should all have an interest in it. I think that the members of the committee acknowledge that. I think that they appreciate that the bill that went to the committee was not perfect. We have heard submissions we are doing work in the new year on that and hopefully a good bill will emerge from that committee it will be something that has the support of the House and it will make for a good legislative environment and better law for New Zealand. 
I thank the great staff of the ACT party here in Wellington—Sandy Sally Chas and Andrew—who do a fantastic job and in Auckland we have Priscilla Brian Willie Stu and Marg all of whom work hard for a small party. Hopefully it will not be small after next year but at this time it has been tough for them. I also thank the party’s board and the president Garry Mallett. They have done an outstanding job. 
I congratulate Mary Harris on taking on the job of Clerk of the House and I say that it is well deserved. We have worked with Mary for many years at question time and we hold her in very very high regard. We hold Mary Harris with the same regard trust and affection that we had for Mr Dave McGee which was totally unblemished and unparalleled and I know that that is the case right around this House. I congratulate Mary Harris on her promotion. It is no mean feat to achieve that level of trust and integrity in this House but both Dave McGee and Mary Harris and the clerks that they oversee and have overseen have achieved that so thank you. 
I would like to thank all the good people of Epsom. I have enjoyed being the MP for Epsom and getting to know the electorate well. It has been a great pleasure to go from being a list MP to representing an electorate. It has been a great pleasure to have a place to find oneself integrated into a community as an MP and to meet people from right across the political spectrum who need help and as an MP to be able to help them. I certainly thank them for the good cheer with which they have regarded me as a member of Parliament. I have worked hard and I hope that hard work will be returned with a vote in 2008. 
I would like to thank at this time all the ACT members and supporters who have stayed true to the ACT cause and to say yes we have had a good year and the best is still to come. I would like especially to thank my caucus. I have a remarkable caucus. It is not easy being the caucus in the ACT party in this parliamentary term because it has had to put up with me but Heather Roy as caucus has always done so with good cheer good humour and a positive outlook. I very much appreciate Heather Roy’s help and support and her friendship. 
It is Christmas and I wish each and every MP of this House the best Christmas. It is a great time to have a rest and to relax and to reflect and to spend time with our friends and our family. It is a great time to be reminded of what a great country we have here in New Zealand and to recommit ourselves each of us in our ways in this House to making this great country even greater in the new year. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 As we adjourn for 2007 I join with others in acknowledging the staff who work around this building; our ministerial staff who are incredibly hard-working and loyal; our electorate staff who work so hard on our behalf around the country; and indeed all of those who work in the Government area. I think overwhelmingly we are very well served by the integrity of our civil servants and the way that they perform their responsibilities. I attribute to them and to our system of governance the fact that this small country is first equal for enjoying the least corrupt system in the world. I travel widely and I have learnt to appreciate the integrity of the system that we have. I attribute to them also the fact that the World Bank regards New Zealand as one of the two top countries in the world for ease of doing business and that is something else that we should celebrate. 
In terms of my portfolio areas I acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and particularly the more than 400 men and women in the Defence Force who will spend their Christmas representing our country overseas in some harsh and difficult environments. I pay tribute to the professionalism of those people. For my new portfolio I acknowledge the work of the Department of Corrections staff. It makes me feel very bad that too often our staff on the ground—within our prisons and working in the probation service outside of our prisons—bear the brunt of criticism from people who are too often ill-informed. The staff work with others whom most New Zealanders would not want to have any relationship with whatsoever and they do their jobs well. I hope that all of those people have some time off over Christmas to enjoy with their families and friends. 
Secondly I would like to reflect on some things that are really good about the country that we live in and where we have come from. Too often it is so easy to put New Zealand down to say that Australia is better or somewhere else is better. There are things that have happened in this country during the last 8 years of which I am really proud. I am proud of the fact that we have secured a rate of economic growth that is higher on average than that of other OECD countries. I am proud of the fact that that period has been the longest sustained period of economic improvement in more than 30 years. I am particularly pleased that that is reflected in the area of employment. The creation of more than a third of a million jobs is really important to New Zealand economically and socially. Our unemployment is down to the lowest level in 28 years at 3.5 percent. 
I remind Bill English what he told us in a press statement in October 1999: “Labour’s claim that it can bring the unemployment rate down to 3 % is also a hoax on all the people who think if they voted Labour they would get a job.” I say to Bill that he was wrong. He should swallow those words. He should acknowledge that it is fantastic that the number of people registered as unemployed in New Zealand is down from 161000 at the end of 1999 to just 21000 now. That is a brilliant achievement. 
I also acknowledge what has been happening for families. Those of us here who are fortunate enough to have families know that there are great rewards in having families and also big costs in a whole lot of ways but one of the costs is the sheer economic cost—the cost of raising children. When we sit around this House and say that things are a bit tough and we would like to do such-and-such but we cannot afford it we should think of those families on modest incomes that are trying to do their best by their kids and to bring them up in an environment in which they can achieve their potential. 
I give personal credit to Michael Cullen for Working for Families. The fact that a family on $35000 a year a pretty modest income gets $199 in its pocket each week to help it with the task of raising its kids is just tremendous. No tax cut could ever deliver that if it were delivered in an orthodox way. Even a family on $62000—coming up to the middle-income area—gets $91 a week and that sort of help is really important in meeting the cost of raising kids. Working for Families has made a real difference for the battlers the people who struggle for their existence in this country. 
I also acknowledge the other things that have happened to those struggling families. We have halved the cost of going to a doctor. It is terrible to think that families out there could not afford to take their kids to the doctor and that therefore whatever they were suffering from—in terms of illness—got worse. Often now people are paying $3 for a prescription item and that gives people across the board access to health which is so important. 
I think of the people with preschool children and the attacks on the 20 hours’ free preschool education. Now I see that 83 percent of New Zealand preschool kids are covered by those 20 hours a week and I say to Steve Maharey: “You were right Steve. Your opponents were wrong. Congratulations on what you have achieved.” 
I think of the old people and I think of my parents who are in that bracket. They are now on 66 percent of the average wage with superannuation rather than 60 percent—a promise delivered and a difference made in the lifestyle and in the standards of living of those families. Those elderly folk were bitterly cynical about politics after the 1990s. They were let down at the start of the 1990s—“No ifs no buts or maybes” a promise broken. They were let down again in 1999 when Bill English cut the rate of superannuation yet again. Now they have the dignity of growing old with a reasonable income having been restored to them. That is a fine thing. 
But if I look at what deserves the award this year for progressive policy it has to be KiwiSaver. Everybody in this House is in a superannuation scheme—and good luck to us; we get a good return on it—but so many hundreds of thousands of families out there never had that opportunity. In just 5 months 316000 New Zealanders joined KiwiSaver. It was great for them for homeownership great for them for saving for their retirement great for New Zealand because we need to save more and great for New Zealand because New Zealanders by saving are retaining ownership of their own country. For all of those reasons we should applaud the KiwiSaver scheme and in the true spirit of Christmas bipartisanship I urge the National Party to come clean and support the scheme. 
So much else is happening that I do not want to talk a lot about the Electoral Finance Bill other than to say that a decent democracy is not a democracy if votes can be manipulated by the spending of millions of dollars by secret groups representing narrow sectoral vested interests. I do not have to mention  
The Hollow Men 
. I do not have to make the accusations. Members have read the book. National members were in the caucus. They know what happened. And they know why that was done. 
Finally on leadership I say that I think Colin James got it right about Helen Clark when he said that “she does an outstanding job abroad” “she is always formidably well briefed” “she is everywhere tirelessly” “she is amazingly accessible to journalists” “she navigates by a clear value-set” and “she has got some regeneration in her party”. I applaud Helen Clark for 8 years of excellent leadership and my caucus and Cabinet colleagues for joining in that leadership and taking this country forward. 
One thing I have to say at the end of 2007 that is rather sad for me personally is that I lost my nephew 4 weeks ago. He was killed in fighting in Afghanistan. We have battles in this House and I enjoy them. I never make it personal—at least I hope I do not. This is a place where we should have fiery arguments over policy. But I say to all of my colleagues in this House how deeply I appreciate their expressions of condolence and support over the loss of that young man who was so important to me and my family. I really do appreciate that. 
I wish everybody in this House a happy Christmas peaceful New Year and some well-deserved time with their families. Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Despite the fact that Phil Goff ended his contribution this afternoon on a fairly solemn note I acknowledge that the expression he gave to the House is appreciated. When it comes to families we are all somewhat vulnerable when we experience personal tragedies like that. In this case it was a particularly sad death. He knows that the condolences from this side of the House have been thoroughly expressed to him. 
Now we will go back to the bit that he spoke about where we have the robust debate. Phil Goff has to be the happiest man in the Labour Party caucus because for the first time in his political career he has his colleagues phoning him up and saying: “Can we come to the barbecue?”. The reason for that is that he is now part of a party that has completely disconnected itself from the aspirations of ordinary New Zealanders. 
It has been fascinating this afternoon to hear Labour members speak in very soft and measured tones about the achievements of the Government. There was an extraordinary speech from Dr Michael Cullen who simply put aside the usual rhetoric that one would expect from him and started to try to list some of the achievements of the Labour Government. He was almost saying: “It’s incredible isn’t it that we’re in such bad shape in the polls when we’ve done so much for these ungrateful people out there.” On the very day that the Electoral Finance Bill was passed I could not help wondering when he started talking about the sitting days next year and telling us not to jump to any conclusions about an election date whether the idea of a “Let’s Not Have an Election This Year Bill” is rattling around inside his head. 
Similarly we heard from Phil Goff the soft list of all the wonderful things the Labour Government is doing for New Zealanders. It was particularly interesting to hear him mention the figure of some $9000 extra apparently over and above the salaries that are heavily taxed going to families on reasonably middling incomes. The interesting thing is firstly that there will be people in this country earning in excess of $60000 a year who are not getting any wealthier at all. It really shows how far incomes have slipped as far as purchasing power is concerned. 
The really amazing thing that Mr Goff chose not to mention is that if that family is average if they are just ordinary New Zealanders and they have an ordinary mortgage then his Government’s excesses spending and hoarding of the taxpayer funds have seen interest rates rise to a level where that $9500 I think he said that is given to them as a benefit has about $7500 taken from it each year in additional interest over and above what they should be paying in an ordinarily dynamic economy. 
I get very very cynical when I hear that sort of soft approach coming from the Labour Party about how good it is. There are many things that he did not mention about this year. The first is the extraordinary outburst of public reaction over the anti-smacking bill. One might say that it has not been as bad as was expected. I do not think that is actually the case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The member voted for it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there are still a lot of people in their homes who wonder what will happen if they get themselves in a situation where their neighbour or school reports on them or some other thing. I think what we saw from the country was an expression of concern about how easily a Government can get into the lives of New Zealanders and rip them around. The member over there said “The member voted for it.” Yes the National Party did extract some compromise from the Prime Minister and we supported the bill. Let me say that had we not done that then the consequences for ordinary families would have been far worse than they are under the current law. If there is a lack of consequence from this bill it is because of the leadership of John Key because of the pressure that was put on by the public and because of the pressure exercised by the National Party. What it really spoke of was the fear that New Zealanders have of their lives being controlled. 
We also did not hear from any of the Ministers about their two ministerial colleagues who were lost during this year—the two ministerial colleagues who got themselves in so much hot water that they had to take off resign or go either for a short period of time or in the case of David Benson-Pope forever. We did not hear about the issues that led to those resignations. We did not hear about the bad behaviour of those Ministers the lying in the House and the misleading of the public. We did not hear about the blatant politicisation of the Public Service. We heard Mr Goff stand up and say how wonderful our civil servants are and how much the Government relies on them. 
I think it is fair to say that we have very very capable and competent people inside the bureaucracy. There is no question about that. They serve Governments very very well. But why do we have a Minister who has to insert his own people inside the ministry in order to get the right political message coming out? We know full well that the Government is sitting on a report from the State Services Commission over the Clare Curran and Erin Leigh incident. We know it will probably be released some time on Friday afternoon or even late on Monday afternoon in order to try to avoid the certain scrutiny that it should receive. How do we know that? Because this afternoon Trevor Mallard who for some 7 weeks now has refused to apologise to Erin Leigh for besmirching her reputation came sneaking down to the House quietly apologised and is now hoping that it will all go away. I do not think the apology would have been given in the House if Mr Mallard did not know what is in the report of the State Services Commission. 
Also in this debate we are looking towards next year. What will next year bring? Well the first thing for the Labour Party apparently is a little bit of renewal because we are saying goodbye to Dianne Yates and Ann Hartley. The problem is that the people Labour is getting in on the list will not have a very long political career at all. They will join some of the others who will wake up in the new year and realise that their political opportunities are rapidly coming to an end. Charles Chauvel will be one of those; it will be back to the law for him. I do not know where Sue Moroney came from but she will not be coming back. Moana Mackey is finished. Darien Fenton can go back to wherever she came from. And of course Rick Barker can too. They are the certainties. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s this sort of arrogance that will get you into trouble. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No; they are the certainties who will go. I remember well in 1998 Trevor Mallard standing in this House and pointing across to various members—pointing right at those members—waving his finger at them and saying “You are gone.” I say to Mr Goff that I would not be as arrogant as that but I can tell the member that there will be a wholesale turnover inside the Labour Party. 
The other thing we can look forward to next year is the Phillip Field fraud case. The member over there Mr Goff might tell us now whether he has been subpoenaed to appear in that case. That is what will happen—there will be a civil case. Mr Damien O’Connor will be there in the dock with Mr Goff and Mr Swain— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: And Ross Robertson. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and Mr Ross Robertson. All of them will be appearing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Unlike you I’ve never had the experience of being in the dock. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can tell the member from personal experience that being in the dock is not a pleasant thing. But being in the dock in an election year is an extremely stupid thing. None the less that will happen. 
We are also debating the sitting times for next year. It will surprise New Zealanders that in the whole of the 2008 year leading up to the election we will see just 60 parliamentary days at the most—just 60 parliamentary days. That is only 2 months. When we take out all the set pieces we will have next year a Government doing 2 months’ work over probably an 8 or 9-month period and we can guarantee that very little will be done at all. 
I take my last couple of minutes to affirm the thanks Mr Key gave on the part of the National Party to the very long list he had and I also congratulate the Clerk Mary Harris on her appointment. It is a historic appointment and thoroughly deserved and we are very pleased to be able to support that. I thank the Assistant Speakers Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson who have filled in for you Madam Speaker adequately throughout the year. I thank also our own member Deputy Speaker the Hon Clem Simich for the work he has done. 
I particularly thank you Madam Speaker for your work. It is not an easy job being the Speaker of the House. There are fraught moments. I know you appreciate that they are just moments and that they do pass. We wish you the presiding officers and the Clerk a very happy Christmas a restful break and a good New Year. I also wish a very merry Christmas to our political confrères in this House. Mr Peters wished us all a very happy January and said it would be all downhill from there. I think that Mr Peters is the one who will find the slide under him for most of 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the 2007 parliamentary year comes to a close I wish to pay tribute in the traditional manner to all those people who contribute to the efficient functioning of the House. First I must acknowledge the support of my colleagues the Deputy Speaker Clem Simich and the Assistant Speakers Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson who have been great to work with and who have never failed to perform when asked. I also acknowledge the tireless work of Parliament’s kaumatua and kuia John Tahuparae and Rose White. I say thank you to you because frequently you are overlooked. 
Once again I formally record my thanks to the former Clerk of the House Dave McGee and wish him every success in his new position as Ombudsman. I record my congratulations to Mary Harris who has been appointed the new Clerk of the House. I also thank the staff of the Clerk’s Office for their professional and administrative skills in servicing the Table of the House; compiling the  
Hansard 
 records; processing legislation questions and petitions; and serving select committees. 
Thanks go also to George Tanner the former Chief Parliamentary Counsel and a welcome is given to David Noble the new Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Without the support and professionalism of the Parliamentary Counsel Office it would be impossible to deliver the quality of service for which this Parliament is known. 
Although the Chamber is of course the focus of parliamentary activities the activities of the House are supported by the staff of Parliamentary Service. It has been a year of much change for the service and I record my thanks for the work that staff have undertaken to improve the quality of that service to members of Parliament and to the public. I formally record my thanks to the former General Manager of Parliamentary Service Joel George and his senior managers; members’ support staff including their executive assistants; support staff of the various parliamentary parties; staff of the library; research units; the Chamber and gallery officers; interpreters; security staff; building services staff; telephonists; travel office staff; and reception and visitor services staff. I also welcome our new general manager Geoff Thorn who joins us next year. 
I record a very special thanks to the Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith and to all those who support him to uphold the traditions and propriety of the Chamber and to welcome visitors to the parliamentary galleries. They are an essential part of the running of this Parliament and events such as the highly successful open day at Parliament in October are testimony to that. Others who work hard to ensure that guests and visitors to the parliamentary complex have an enjoyable experience include Beverly Cathcart and Michelle Janse. 
Thank you to all of you who have worked to support the committees that I chair: the Business Committee Parliamentary Service Commission Standing Orders Committee and Officers of Parliament Committee. It has been a busy year as most of you know especially for the Parliamentary Service Commission which has worked tirelessly to produce the new determination and directions. 
I also acknowledge the work of the officers of Parliament. I offer a special thanks to the Leader of the House the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and to the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee and also to the leaders of all the parties in this House their deputies the party whips—a special thankyou to the party whips—and their deputies. You have all contributed to the smooth operation of the business of the House. 
I acknowledge and thank the members of the press gallery who are a necessary part of a democratic Parliament. I acknowledge also the work of all members of Parliament who despite enormous workloads serve this House well. I extend very very heartfelt personal thanks to my own staff—Pam Roland the two Roses and Nina. It would be impossible to do my job without you. 
Although people can now see how hard we work through the televising of Parliament—late into the night as was witnessed last week—I would like to reinforce that impression of our hard work with a few statistics. These are the sitting hours for 2007 as recorded to 14 December. We had 88 sitting days and 91 calendar days—you could put in a quiz a sort of trick question as to why they are different. The sitting hours were 523 hours and 58 minutes. The bills passed were 110 Government bills three members’ bills one local bill and one private bill. Of the questions asked there were 20772 written questions and 1059 oral questions excluding supplementary questions. There have been 413 select committee meetings this year—comprising 1044 hours and 20 minutes—which produced 302 reports. 
After that and as I draw this session of Parliament to a close I wish for you to join your families and friends for the coming break; to eat drink sensibly and have a break during that time; and to come back refreshed to the House where we start all over again in February 2008. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.