Volume 643 Week 61 - Wednesday 14 November 2007 
Volume 643 Week 61 - Wednesday 14 November 2007 
[Volume:643;Page:13063] 
Wednesday 14 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) to be taken through its remaining stages on Tuesday 20 November and for the debates on the questions that the bill be now read a second and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being taken? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Oil Prices—Forecasts 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he been advised of any central government forecasts that have more accurately predicted the trend of rising oil prices than Treasury or the Reserve Bank given his statement in the House yesterday that “there is a very very high probability that any forecasts are likely to be wrong in this area;”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Of course a range of forecasts are prepared and no doubt departments occasionally differ internally about what the forecast should be. But both Treasury and the Reserve Bank base their forecasts on the future market for oil. I should note that over the long term of course oil prices have shown very marked upwards and downwards trends often moving quite sharply contrary to earlier forecasts. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that of the two projections in the Ministry of Economic Development’s 2006  
Energy Outlook 
 the high oil price forecast shown by the green line in this chart I am holding and described as the minority view has so far predicted the oil price trend very accurately in stark contrast to the mainstream view shown by the red line which has oil prices flat until 2030; if so will he commit to taking the minority view more seriously given the failure of the other three wildly optimistic Government forecasts to align with reality? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is true that in that particular case the green line is better than the red line but the member should not draw too much comfort from that fact necessarily over the long term. The realities in the past are that we have seen forecasts of long-term increasing prices for oil and then sharp downturns have occurred in those prices. For example in the 1970s after a very long period of declining real prices for oil there were sharp upturns in 1974 and 1979 but the price then fell very sharply back again in the early 1980s and tended to decline in real terms through to about 1999-2000. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the Minister said in the House yesterday that “it is worth reminding ourselves that oil prices now are not that much more in real terms than they were when they last peaked at a very high level”—and assuming that he was referring to 1979 as he just did—does the Government have plans for any form of demand management such as was found necessary by the Government in that year leading to carless days and plans for petrol rationing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the actual peak was in 1981. It is very questionable in fact whether some of the measures taken at that time such as carless days actually had very much of an effect at all. Indeed high prices may have one of the more significant effects in terms of moderating behaviour car engine size efficiency alternative fuels use of public transport and a range of other factors on which the member and I do tend to agree. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that regional councils across the country have based transport planning decisions—and made long-term contracts with the companies supplying bus services which are indexed to oil prices at around $60 a barrel—on the basis of the forecasts by Treasury the Reserve Bank and the mainstream Ministry of Economic Development forecast and that with oil now above $90 a barrel the councils are unexpectedly scrambling to find millions of dollars to cover rises in fuel prices that the Government forecasts completely failed to predict; if so how does he think the councils will get on if the price continues to follow the Ministry of Economic Development’s high oil price scenario up to $120 a barrel? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously they will need to adjust their plans as everybody else will if very high oil prices continue and further increases occur in the short to medium term future. But there remains a great deal of uncertainty around those forecasts because of course prices of oil over recent times have been affected not only by real economic factors—strong world growth and particularly a lack of increased capacity in the refinery sector—but also by political factors. It takes a very good crystal ball to be able to see how those factors are going to unravel over the next few years. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister then ruling out the idea that this is the start of a long-term trend of continually rising oil prices because the rate at which the world’s oil wells can produce oil is going to decline from now on regardless of the discovery of new fields and they cannot make up for the rate at which existing fields are declining? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not sure that the last point is still accepted at all. There is still a great deal of argument about whether new discoveries can outpace the growth in demand over say the coming 10 years. Taking a very long-term view I think it is a very safe bet that the long-term trend in oil prices is upwards in real terms but whether that is from the current very high base or from a much lower base than that of course remains an open question. I remind the member again that we saw very sharp increases in oil prices in the 1970s peaking in 1981. By 1999 oil prices were back in real terms to only about a fifth or a quarter of what they had been in 1981. So clearly these trends can show very sharp movements over the short to medium term. Over the longer term it is a reasonably safe bet that there will be a long-term trend of rising oil prices because obviously there is a finite resource. We simply do not know how much of that finite resource there is. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Does she in light of the reports released today believe that it was acceptable for Madeleine Setchell to have lost her job because of her partner’s political association and is that in accordance with the generally accepted standards of the New Zealand Public Service? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No it was not acceptable for her to lose her job and I note from the report it is quite clear that Mr Logan consistently ignored advice from the State Services Commission. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the reports released today paint a picture of considerable ministerial involvement in the employment of senior communications managers and does she accept that this is an acceptable standard for what is meant to be a neutral Public Service? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I have not inferred that from the reports. What I have read is that two chief executives themselves decided to approach Ministers on these matters. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Ms Setchell having been removed from her job at the Ministry for the Environment was subsequently denied employment at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry after the chief executive consulted Jim Anderton and did not even get an acknowledgment from the Ministry of Education; and is it now the case the public servants with partners engaged in a political role are effectively blacklisted from the Public Service? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. Again I note from my reading of the report that when the I believe it was acting communications director at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry asked Ms Setchell whether she would be interested in him looking for an employment opportunity for her she herself raised the issue of whether that would be acceptable. The director then of his own volition went to the chief executive who went to the Minister. The Minister simply quite properly made the comment that he would have some concerns that it might put Ms Setchell in a difficult position. He said nothing that was wrong. 
John Key 
: Why would the chief executive officers bother to consult their Ministers about employing Ms Setchell if that was to have no outcome? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is of course a reason why Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan that he should not be drawing the Minister into it. Mr Prebble’s advice—and later Mr Rennie’s—was very robust that they should not be paying regard to ministerial views. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think that a 2.5 percent pay cut is the appropriate penalty for the State Services Commissioner; and if she does how does she reconcile that with the treatment Madeleine Setchell got: she lost her job and she was blacklisted in the Public Service under a Labour Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The latter statement is not correct. Ms Setchell of course had a termination package that was confidential so the contents of it are not available to the House. I note in respect of Dr Prebble that the report is very very clear that his failure to recall the comment made to him by Mr Logan had no effect whatsoever on the outcome for Ms Setchell. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is the way the New Zealand public see this situation going: an innocent young woman takes a job in the State sector but because the State sector is no longer neutral under a Labour Government she loses her job she is blacklisted the only person who pays a price is her and the reason that has happened is that the Labour Government intends to use the massive spending of Government ministries to try to buy its re-election—and is it any wonder Labour is on the way out? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course those allegations are absurd. I hear allegations on this side of the House—tell us about your war chest tell us about your secret donors Mr Key. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable that the Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Anderton gave an opinion that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry should not employ Madeleine Setchell in a contract position on the basis of whom she was sleeping with; and if that is the standard that is going to be run past her Ministers given that this is Wellington where will it end? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course that was not the opinion the Minister of Agriculture gave. He simply observed when approached by the chief executive that such an appointment could place Ms Setchell in some difficulty herself but he made it very clear that employment matters were ones for the chief executive. 
Housing—Affordability 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Is the Minister taking note of the evidence being submitted to the Commerce Committee housing affordability inquiry; if so will she be taking that evidence into account in framing her policy response to the issue of severe housing unaffordability for New Zealand’s families? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes as far as the Standing Orders allow. I will consider the report when it is reported back from the Commerce Committee. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that evidence submitted to the Commerce Committee by Motu Economic and Public Policy Research indicates that land just inside Auckland’s metropolitan urban boundary is worth between eight and 13 times more than land just outside much of it held by land bankers; if so will she consider making such arbitrary interventions in the supply of land illegal to drive down section prices? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Government is considering a range of measures particularly in the Auckland area to deal with the issue of land affordability which goes to the question of housing affordability. All possibilities will be considered and taken into account and comment on them will be made in due course. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: What specific initiatives is the Labour-led Government exploring to make houses more affordable and accessible? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: A lot of great work is happening—in fact too much to mention here in a short time but I will give a couple of examples. I expect to introduce the Affordable Housing Bill to the House soon and that will enable councils to ensure that affordable housing is developed; KiwiSaver will soon allow first home buyers $10000 to put towards their home; and the Welcome Home Loan scheme has already helped over 3000 applicants secure a mortgage. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will the Government consider tax incentives to help Kiwis buy their first home as part of a package to help improve housing affordability and will the Government also consider measures advocated by Australia such as tax-free savings accounts for first home deposits? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Labour-led Government has already introduced tax concessions for savings in the form of KiwiSaver and of course the KiwiSaver savings can be diverted into a deposit for a first home purchase. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister accept the evidence of Demographia that development levies charged under the Local Government Act are in reality new house purchaser infrastructure charges which add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home and does she intend to bring that flawed process to an end in her policy review? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Demographia is well recognised as a reputable organisation. Certainly the points that it made in its submissions already to the Commerce Committee will be taken into account. I presume the select committee will give all of the submissions that have been presented to it on this issue considerable weight and discussion and I look forward to its response. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the Registered Master Builders Federation has informed the committee’s inquiry that as a result of the Building Act although it needs just four or five pages of plans to build a new single-storey family home it now needs 12 to 13 pages of plans to obtain the building consent; if so will she give this unnecessary and expensive over-regulation the chop? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes I am aware of those issues raised and my colleague the Hon Shane Jones is working on those matters. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why is it that housing unaffordability average house price to average income interest rates and land prices have all rocketed since 2000 well over and above the increases in the 1990s? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: There are a number of factors that contribute to those items that the member opposite has just listed. Some of them are clearly to do with the increased growth and economic position of the country but the fact that people are wealthier is one of the very considerable contributing factors. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the comparative interest rate increases over the last 15 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the comparative land price increases over the last 15 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the comparative house price to income increase over the last 15 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
State Services Commissioner—Confidence 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he have confidence in the State Services Commissioner; if so why? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. I do not defend the State Services Commissioner for his mistakes but the question for the Government is whether his mistakes were so serious as to justify bringing to an end his long and distinguished career as a senior public servant for this and previous Governments. In my opinion that would be an unjust overreaction and he has my confidence to continue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister have confidence in Dr Prebble when it is clear that he failed to keep accurate records of discussions he had with Mr Logan about the employment of Madeleine Setchell he failed to provide his deputy with information about that discussion he failed to keep his Minister up to date with matters relating to that particular issue he subsequently overlooked the fact that he had knowledge of the Minister’s involvement in this particular case and he then failed to provide Public Service leadership to his chief executive officers meaning that Madeleine Setchell not only faced a sacking from one Minister at the hands of a Minister but also was blackballed in another position by ministerial veto as well? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The list of alleged errors that the member referred to was actually repetition of the effect of the same error. The omission by Dr Prebble to remember what Mr Logan had told him was behind the errors that were listed by Mr Brownlee. Dr Prebble has done nothing dishonest and calling for his head would be disproportionate to his mistakes. To overreact would be to create another injustice and I do not want to do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that Dr Prebble told the Government Administration Committee today that the sacking of Madeleine Setchell was a mistake that it should not have happened and that he advised Mr Logan not to take that particular course of action but the chief executive officer of the Ministry for the Environment was so timid of Mr David Benson-Pope that he decided to go ahead and sack her anyway; if so how can this State Services Commissioner be expected to oversee the depoliticisation of the Public Service when so many of his chief executive officers are frightened of Ministers and will not take his advice? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was not at the select committee so I did not hear what was said. But I have read the report and the report makes it clear that Dr Prebble did clearly express his opinion to Mr Logan. He also clearly expressed to Mr Logan that at law the decision was Mr Logan’s to take and the report confirms that Mr Logan did indeed take his own decision. He has now been criticised for that decision and is suffering the consequences of that decision which is rightly criticised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think it was acceptable for Dr Prebble to write an op-ed charitably described by Don Hunn as “only a partial explanation” particularly when that op-ed explicitly stated that David Benson-Pope was not involved in the decision to sack Madeleine Setchell a statement that Dr Prebble knew then to be untrue but has since explained away as being not critical to the issue? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Hunn in his report has some sympathy for Mr Prebble wanting to reply to what Mr Hunn referred to as outrageous misrepresentations of events that were occurring in some editorials. Having said that it was inappropriate for him to do that through an op-ed piece in one particular newspaper rather than through a general news release. 
Tim Barnett 
: Was the National Party offered a briefing yesterday on the reports of Mr Hunn and Dr Prebble; if so did it accept one? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are to be heard in silence. People will leave the Chamber if they do not respect that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister has no responsibility for the National Party’s decisions. But for the record we were offered a briefing at 8.45 this morning which was 15 minutes before Mr Prebble was going to give a press statement. We felt that a 15-minute briefing was the sort of joke and unprofessional way of doing things that seems to have characterised Mr Prebble’s behaviour throughout this whole issue. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Clearly it is the Minister’s responsibility to answer questions in this House on the actions of the State Services Commissioner. The Minister is not responsible for those actions but he is responsible to respond to the House about those actions. Otherwise a whole host of questions that members opposite ask would not be able to be answered by the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Listening to the argument I say that the question is in order though I take note of what Mr Brownlee said. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The issue of whether the State sector had been inappropriately politicised in this issue was of obvious concern to both the Opposition and the Government. The State Services Commissioner in an effort to be politically neutral did in fact offer copies of the reports and briefings to the National Party which were declined. 
Hon Members 
: When? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Last night and this morning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister have confidence in Dr Prebble when Dr Prebble now leads a State service sector in which chief executive officers feel they need to consult Ministers of the Crown before they make employment decisions and what does that say about New Zealand’s politically neutral Public Service? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The assertion in that question is plainly not true. Indeed Mr Hunn’s report—I think on pages 37 and 38—includes a very good account of Mr Anderton’s response to Mr Hunn in respect of these issues. I think it is a very mature considered balanced and proper response by Mr Anderton at the time to Mr Hunn. Amongst other things it records the fact that in his 8 years as a senior Cabinet Minister only two such instances have happened on his watch. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister have confidence in Dr Prebble when Don Hunn devotes more than two pages of his report to Dr Prebble’s memory loss and does he think the words that Mr Hunn uses in the report when he says that we all forget from time to time particularly as the years advance is some sort of veiled message to Dr Prebble? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I do not. I actually accept the findings of Mr Hunn. There was no dishonesty on the part of Dr Prebble. If the National Party were to apply the same impossibly high standard to its own members there would be no Opposition members on those benches. 
State-owned Enterprises—Social Responsibility Monitoring 
5.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What is the Government doing to monitor the social responsibility of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government recently formalised a framework for corporate social responsibility which will apply to all State-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises will be monitored and measured against targets just like financial performance. Under this new framework each State-owned enterprise will be required to assess its impact on the society and environment in which it operates and to adopt specific corporate social responsibility programmes that are appropriate. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of any State-owned enterprises that have already undertaken corporate social responsibility programmes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. Many are currently going on. The Genesis Oncology Trust is one example; the million freepost envelopes distributed to community groups by New Zealand Post is another. Of course if the Tories had their way and hocked off the State-owned enterprises to their mates that would all finish. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 6 the Hon Bill English. I have called the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wake up Bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Trevor should ask for his money back. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is inappropriate as was the Minister’s comment. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Government Departments Election-year Advertising 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday when asked whether Government advertising programmes would be caught by the definition of election advertising in the Electoral Finance Bill “No Government departments will not be caught because they will go to the Auditor-General to have their advertising cleared.”; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: On behalf of Annette King— 
Hon Member 
: “Mr Fix-it”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not broken yet but he’s going to fix it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Just wait for high tide mate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If there are any further comments like that I will ask the member to leave the Chamber. It only creates disorder. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes; Government departments are not allowed to electioneer. The Prime Minister said as much again earlier this week and moreover the State Services Commission guidelines are in the public arena for all to see. Should any Government department have doubts as to whether it is within established guidelines then it would be well advised to seek the advice of the Auditor-General. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Auditor-General referred to in the answer to the question the same Auditor-General described last year by the Prime Minister as “overturning accepted and longstanding practices on electoral spending” and the same Auditor-General whom the Prime Minister accused of smearing the reputation of Labour and other parties and of changing the rules on electoral spending after the final whistle had blown; if so why has the Government developed a new-found respect for his judgment on the legality of election spending? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is the same Auditor-General. If the Auditor-General says that the spending of the Government department in question is not electioneering then I think we can believe that that is the case. 
Ann Hartley 
: Has the Minister seen any examples of where taxpayer funding has been used for election advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. I have here from the National Party unsurprisingly a full-colour glossy product from National’s front-bencher Dr Nick Smith and here is what it states: “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” and “Nick for Nelson”. It was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer—not in 2005 before the Auditor-General decided to have his say on the matter but it was printed in 2007 which was afterwards. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are permitted to briefly display pamphlets or whatever they have but not to throw them around the Chamber in the way that that was happening. I ask the member who is perfectly entitled to display the pamphlet to then put it down. The same advice goes to the Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That seems to me to be a particularly harsh ruling. Mr Williamson was not throwing the pamphlet around the Chamber. He was simply augmenting the extraordinary display of taxpayer-paid Labour signage that is throughout the House already. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table my newsletters from 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 and in fact for every single year that I have been a member of Parliament. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for the pamphlet from Dr Nick Smith that has just been displayed to be referred to the Auditor-General for comment as to its legality under the current spending rules in Parliament. 
Document not tabled. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister have any reason to believe that our impartial Civil Service will do anything other than the right thing during an election period with regard to advertising and does she agree that National members should not judge others by what they would do themselves? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for his question. It is an opportunity to put on the record that the State sector of this country across successive Governments maintains its neutrality. I say simply given that we have heightened anxiety about these matters should Government departments have any concerns about whether they are electioneering or even slightly electioneering they should rush off and see the Auditor-General and get clearance from that office. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party’s electoral finance proposal to ban donations that originate from overseas with the exception of donations from New Zealand citizens who live overseas and are entitled to vote to ensure that political parties are not influenced or supported by international political and financial interests that are kept secret from the New Zealand public? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The formal answer to the member’s question is that I await the response of the select committee and its report back to the House; indeed that is where the matters lie at the moment. But I make the comment that this is a House of Representatives and not a House of Representatives who happen to have rich mates. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the New Zealand public would have faith in Labour’s commitment to the Auditor-General’s processes when before the 2005 election he tabled a report in this Parliament telling MPs what the rules were and how important it was to stick to them and then Labour in a campaign of calculated deceit went and broke those rules breached the electoral cap and had to pay the money back—Labour did that under the Auditor-General’s guidelines? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that the member needs to get the timing right. Labour got the judgment after the expenditure not before—that is the first thing. There is no doubt about that. The second point is that members could not say that the Auditor-General is something of a soft touch could they? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the public should believe Labour’s commitment to following the rules laid down by public officials when during the 2005 election campaign it was warned in writing by the Chief Electoral Officer that spending the money on the pledge card would breach the electoral cap the Labour Party replied by acknowledging the problem and saying it would count the money for election spending and then 3 days after it was elected it withdrew that undertaking; so why would the public believe Labour’s commitment to following the rules? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It seems to me that when the member fails to make a point in one aspect of his argument he simply shifts his target. You see on the issue of the Auditor-General it is a matter of fact that we were given advice after the expenditure—that is a matter of fact. On the issue of whether Government departments ought to go to the Auditor-General the advice from this Government—from the Prime Minister down—is: “If you have any doubt do so and you won’t find the Auditor-General a soft touch.” It seems to me that the member is buying into the conspiracy that we found in the  
New Zealand Herald  
earlier this week that somehow Government departments are going to be immune from the electoral finance legislation. In fact the Leader of the Opposition made the same mistake in question No. 1. I can assure the member there will be no immunity or special treatment for Government departments under this Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister of Justice finally understand what the law will be: that when the Electoral Finance Bill is passed it will not be a matter for the Auditor-General to decide whether Government department advertising is lawful but a matter for the law—that is the Electoral Finance Act if it becomes so—to lay down a test of what makes election advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are guidelines on the State Services Commission’s website. The member should go to those guidelines and look at them because the State Services Commission requires that they be followed by all State agencies. If any State agency has any doubt about whether it is following those guidelines irrespective of what any law that does not apply to Government departments says then they can go to the Auditor-General to get some further advice. The bottom line is this. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now have the rest of the answer in silence. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The bottom line is this. Government departments may not electioneer they have never been able to and they are not allowed to in this case as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now remove the confusion created by his last answer as to whether it is Government policy that Government departments will be exempt from the election advertising rules or whether they will be subject to the election advertising rules as set out in the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Not only are Government departments not allowed to electioneer which is the case now but there is a tighter test for Government departments than there is for the rest of us. It is to be found in the State Services Commission’s guidelines. If Government departments have any doubt as to whether they are following those tighter guidelines then they can go to the Auditor-General for advice and we recommend that they do. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the guidelines be tighter than the Electoral Finance Bill requirements when the Electoral Finance Bill definition of an election advertisement states it is anything that encourages a person to vote for any party or candidate as indicated by reference to any position on any issue? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is inviting me—as other members did earlier this week—to comment on what changes might or might not be going on in the select committee. It is not proper for me to do so. I say to the member that he does not have long to wait. 
Tuhoe Trauma—Response 
7.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha te mahi mana tetahi atu hoki a ma tana Tari ranei ki te whakautu i nga ngaukino i tau ki runga i a Ngai Tuhoe ake i whakaputaina ra e te kaikorero mo Tuhoe a Tamati Kruger i ki ra: “Ki ahau nei ahakoa ko wai te tangata he tika tonu kia riri a ia—penei hoki i a matau. Me kaua rawa e warewaretia e tatau.”? 
[ 
What action if any will he or his ministry be taking to respond to the trauma specifically experienced by the iwi of Tuhoe as expressed by Tuhoe spokesperson Tamati Kruger and I quote: “I think any normal regular person would feel anger—and we do feel angry about what has happened. We must not forget it.”? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
I raro i taku turanga Minita mo nga Take Maori kei ahau te mahi kaitiaki mo ngai Maori katoa. Kei te mahi kaha tonu ahau me taku Manatu ki roto i nga taumata hapori ki te whakawhiwhi huarahi ahu whakamua mo te hapori nga tikanga nga ohanga mo ratou o ngai Tuhoe. 
[ 
As Minister of Maori Affairs I have a duty to care for all Maori. I and my ministry continue to work constructively at the community level to provide social cultural and economic pathways forward for the people of Tuhoe. 
] 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Has the Minister been advised that the Minister of Police justified the over-the-top reactions of the police towards the people of Ruatoki and their subsequent effect on innocent people as being merely “collateral damage” and what advice will he be giving the Minister about such a statement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I rongo au ki nga korero me nga pirihimana e puta ana pera tonu na te mea i roto i aku me nga pirihimana te Kawanatanga me ngai Tuhoe e whiriwhiri i nga take kei waenga i a ratou. 
[ 
I have heard statements of that nature that have emerged about the police but that is something for the police the Government and Tuhoe to work through collectively. 
] 
Dave Hereora 
: What support has Te Puni Kokiri provided in the Tuhoe area? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Ko te tuku putea mo te Hui Ahurei o Tuhoe me nga hui whakanui o Matariki enei hui rongonui e tautoko ana i te Tuhoetanga. Ko te tuku putea hei tautoko i te whanaketanga whanau ki roto o Tuhoe te tuku putea ki nga kaupapa pera i a Mauri Ora e pa ana ki te whakakore tukino katoa ki roto i nga hapori. 
[ 
It has invested in the Tuhoe Festival and Matariki celebrations. These well-known events support Tuhoe culture. It has invested in supporting family development in Tuhoe and in projects such as Mauri Ora which is about moving towards zero tolerance in communities. 
] 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Would the Minister agree that a number of people and organisations have contributed to portraying this issue as one about Tuhoe when it is clearly not purely a Tuhoe issue and that those people and organisations should be apologising for their part in needlessly singling out and alienating the Tuhoe people? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is very clear that some people have gone out with zealot-type behaviour in blaming everybody else. But clearly there are three Tuhoe there are three Maori and there are a whole lot of Pakeha. I say it again: mad Pakeha and overexcited Maori do not make a good mix. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Is the Minister aware that the recent Marae Digi-Poll confirmed that 75 percent of the Maori polled from the Maori roll considered the armed police raids in Ruatoki to be an unnecessary overreaction and what work will his ministry be doing to improve the all-time low relationship between his Government and Maori? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have read and studied the Marae Digi-Poll well and I understand the small catchment that it cuts. There is only one poll that matters and that is on election day and we will see each other there. There is a clear factor in this issue in relation to the struggle for Maori rights in this country which has been strong and enduring. It should never never involve arms and violence. Some parties and people in this House have stirred it up to be something else and they should wake up. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Will the Minister be visiting the Tuhoe people to support them in this time of their trauma? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Absolutely! I was in Murupara in the weekend and I went past Opotiki the weekend before that. I will be there. 
Ron Mark 
: Would he agree that the Tuhoe people have been besmirched by a very small number of extremists in their midst who along with 13 others 10 of whom were Pakeha planned to commit acts of terrorism and murder and that if any fault does lie with Tuhoe it is with those who knew that these activities were being conducted and that training camps were running and who chose to do nothing about that? 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that question prejudices the court cases by referring to numbers of people and assuming guilt. Is that not against your instructions? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened to it and I think that it was close to the edge in the language it used. But I do not think that it actually referred to the cases that are before the court at the moment. I ask the Minister in responding to take that into account. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was a specific reference to a number—13—and obviously it gets— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If we are talking here about the number of people charged under the firearms legislation of course that is a matter of public record. Indeed I think that the number of those who were involved in potential charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act was also in the public arena. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am satisfied that it does not actually step over the line. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am aware of those matters and the reason why police took action in the first place needs to be kept at the forefront of our minds. It is not about the performance on the day but it is certainly about why they went there. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister received or seen any reports from other iwi who are upset at the alleged actions and plans of these suspected terrorists and at their negative effect on the portrayal of Maoridom as a whole and who understand that the police have a job to do and must act against people who would plan murder and mayhem? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes I have from Timi te Heuheu who was concerned that certain factions were trying to drag the arikinui into this episode of happenings of the moment. I have also heard from Naida Glavish a principal spokesperson who did not agree with the performance of the police on the first day but who certainly voiced caution in relation to people continuing to work with the police in an amicable way and urged the police to do better in the sense of working with Maori. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House what credibility he can give to those people who would advocate that Maori who have been exposed to seeing men wearing masks and Maori who have now been exposed to seeing men carrying guns have been so traumatised that they need Government and State assistance to overcome that trauma when daily we read in the newspaper of masked protesters masked Maori gang members and Maori gang members using firearms regularly in drive-by shootings and having firearms in their homes on a day-to-day basis—what credibility can those people possibly have? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: To the tail end of that member’s question—none whatsoever. But I remind that member that there are issues that Tuhoe have to sort out with Tuhoe and there are issues between the police and Tuhoe that they have to sort out. This Labour-led Government is quite clear and keen on supporting the Tuhoe people coming out of that incident. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article by Moana Jackson that criticises the sidelining of the iwi-police— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think I might well have used the supplementary questions allocated to me so I seek leave of the House to ask one final supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you have one more so you can use your last supplementary question for your party on this question. 
Ron Mark 
: No Madam Speaker I do not wish to use that one; that is for one of my colleagues. I am seeking leave for an extra supplementary question to ask a final question on this question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Tax cuts—Business 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did the business tax cuts announced in the 2007 Budget meet his “four tests” for tax cuts; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I made clear the four tests relate to changes to personal tax. The main tests apply to the business tax package. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh a different test for companies. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is very hard to apply a test of equity to business tax cuts. The main tests applied to the business tax package were fiscal affordability and the likely impact on economic growth. As with all tax reductions introduced since I have been Minister of Finance the National Party voted against these tax cuts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is he introducing a test of social equity now for personal tax cuts when he did not apply it to his tax credits for KiwiSaver and his business tax cuts possibly for the reason that they would not have met a test of social equity? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Let me just deal with the issue of KiwiSaver. Tax credits for KiwiSaver rise to a maximum of $20 a week. In other words the maximum tax credit under KiwiSaver is achieved at $26000 a year. A person on that level who can afford to save $20 a week—in some cases that means giving up less than two packets of cigarettes in a week—will get $40 a week and eventually $60 a week into his or her savings. A person say on $78000 a year will have to save $60 a week to qualify for the same $20 a week tax credit. That is in fact a progressive assistance for savings. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports outlining appropriate tests to be applied when considering support for tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report basically that says tax cuts should be opposed if they are proposed by Labour. This can be the only reason why the National Party has voted against every tax cut this Government has introduced. But I should also note that I have gone back 40 years trying to search the records and in not one of those 40 years—during most of which of course the National Party was in power—did National ever introduce a reduction in the standard corporate rate of business tax. The only change it made was in 1970 to increase it. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm the fact that his business tax cuts form part of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour and that new parties such as New Zealand First have had a greater role in cutting taxes for business than the National Party within the last two decades given that National did not cut business tax at all when it was last in power? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed it was the subject of the confidence and supply agreements of both New Zealand First and United Future. Of course it is most unlikely one would ever have a confidence and supply agreement with National because for a start we have no confidence in National. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister also confirm that as part of the business tax review both in the original document and in its conclusion it was acknowledged that any consequential changes for personal taxes would have to be considered and that that is precisely what is on the agenda at this point? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is absolutely correct and as I have said now on a number of occasions as the economy is growing faster than anticipated and the Government has higher surpluses than it was previously forecasting that means that the country at large can enjoy a dividend out of that. The question is how much when and to whom it goes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does he recall saying: “The actual benefit of a lower company tax goes to foreign resident shareholders for whom it is in the main the final tax. Leaving aside the political question of whether our fiscal priority is to give tax breaks to foreigners …”; and if that is the case why should anyone take seriously a social equity test that he sets up when he spent his first billion dollars of tax reductions on foreign resident shareholders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is pity one cannot apply a social equity test to business tax cuts because that is the nature of the ownership of business. It is equally clear that a number of people have noticed—perhaps it has gone missing in the minds of National members opposite—that the Australians have lowered their corporate tax rate. Of course in that situation two things may happen: a higher corporate tax rate here may tend to bias investment into Australia rather than New Zealand; also of course it may tend to bias trans-Tasman profit activity to be in Australia rather than New Zealand to take advantage of the lower rate even though of course in Australia corporates have to pay things like stamp duties general capital gains tax and a number of other taxes they do not have to pay in New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given his very recent attention to the comparison does he recall saying: “Firstly it is not valid to compare a 30 percent nominal company tax rate in Australia with 33 percent in New Zealand. … Australian corporates have other non-discretionary levies … Since this is a small increase in what is left over from profitable investment is the business community really saying to me that the profit potential of investment options for foreigners here versus elsewhere is so finely balanced …”; and does not that mean that he never even believed in the company tax cut when he did it?  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said in the Budget if the member cares to go back to the speech businesses kept saying that they saw reducing the corporate tax rate as one of the most important issues for corporate profitability and investment. As I said in the Budget they will now have a chance to put their actions where their words have been for some time. I am sure that any future Government will monitor very carefully what their response is before considering further changes to the corporate tax rate reduction. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister not just own up to the fact that his new attention to a social equity test for tax cuts is an attempt to hang on to some shred of what he believes is his principled opposition to tax cuts when he has been under enormous pressure from the Prime Minister to deliver personal income tax cuts and he will have to do it whether he likes it or not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have been under no such pressure at all. The member just keeps making that up as he makes up almost everything he ever says on any issue. The member totally lacks credibility. The reality is that the National Party always argues for tax cuts where the vast bulk of them go to those on high incomes. It is not worried about people on low incomes. If we can afford a dividend that dividend should go across the board not simply to those on the highest incomes. That may be what the Macquarie Bank is paying for from National; it is not what it will get from a Labour-led Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that a quick look at the facts shows exactly the opposite and that in fact National brought in the family tax credit when it was last in Government and as he said himself did not reduce company tax and that he who is meant to be the prophet on social equity and so principled has done just about the opposite—that is his first $1 billion of company tax cuts have gone to high-income people most of whom are foreign-resident shareholders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What a short memory a man has when he has to make it up as he goes along. The Government’s first big moves on tax were the Working for Families package which is now worth $2.5 billion a year which has increased the average income for families with two kids by about $100 a week and which the National Party voted against and still will not endorse. Indeed National says that any campaign to advise people of their rights to Working for Families is a political campaign—ipso facto one that distinguishes Labour from National. 
Working for Families—Number of Families Benefiting 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many families are benefiting from Working for Families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 At the end of September of this year some 290000 New Zealand families were receiving Working for Families tax credits. It is predicted that by the end of the tax year 360000 families will benefit from the tax credits—that is three out of four New Zealand families with children. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been the impact of Working for Families on working families with children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Working for Families makes it easier for New Zealand families to be in paid work and raise a family. It has increased family incomes. A couple earning $45000 a year with two young children is now $7000 a year better off. A couple earning $90000 with four children is over $6000 a year better off. It is making a real difference for real people like Sophie Read from Dunedin. She recently started her career following some time on the domestic purposes benefit. Working for Families has made her better off by more than $150 a week. Alongside other Labour-led Government initiatives such as paid parental leave free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds reduced doctors’ visit fees and reduced prescription charges Working for Families is enabling New Zealanders to make choices about working and caring that best meet their family needs. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding support for the Working for Families package? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen many supportive reports and I have also seen some conflicting reports. For example in November 2005 there was the declaration: “National members will be opposing this legislation with every bone in our bodies.”; then just 2 years later: “I like the fact that families get more because they face substantial costs. We have made it clear we are not planning to make changes to Working for Families that would make people worse off.” That is despite the fact that just 2 months earlier at the National Party conference the leader had said exactly the opposite. That report suggested cutting Working for Families with proposals that would lead to 60000 families completely losing their Working for Families support. They are all different statements from the leader of the National Party demonstrating his usual flip-flopping. Meanwhile our Government is getting on with the real business of providing real opportunities for New Zealand families to get ahead. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold the question over until the Minister is able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Sexual Abuse Allegations—Ministry of Education Procedures 
10.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statements to the House yesterday that “The ministry took every appropriate step it needed to” and that the Board of Hato Paora “followed the appropriate steps” when dealing with concerns regarding serious allegations of sexual abuse made against the school’s principal? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes most certainly. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why is he adamant that the school and ministry took appropriate steps when the previous Minister of Education Steve Maharey told the media when contacted about the case in August that if schools become aware of allegations of criminal activity they are obliged to alert the police? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Under the inter-agency protocols police and Child Youth and Family keep each other informed of allegations such as these. In effect reporting to one is the same as reporting to the other as this case shows. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can the Minister outline to the House whether the inter-agency protocols were followed in this case? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: They most certainly were. This document  
Breaking the Cycle: Interagency Protocols for Child Abuse Management 
 was done by that party in 1996 and has been adhered to by those agencies. Those inter-agency protocols have been in place since 1996. Where allegations such as these are made school boards as the employers are required to conduct an investigation and report the allegations to either the police or Child Youth and Family. The police and Child Youth and Family are also required under the same inter-agency protocols to keep each other informed of such allegations. I am advised that the protocols were followed in this case. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the inter-agency protocols are so robust then why did a senior sergeant in Palmerston North commenting on the case say that if there is a sexual allegation against a teacher at any school it should be reported to the police immediately and “police are the best people to investigate these issues fairly and properly.” but at the time the media contacted the police they had not heard of the allegations at all? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have outlined how these allegations came about—from the board to Child Youth and Family and to the police at the same time. That is the process in the protocols. 
Katherine Rich 
: How can he stand by his statements in the House yesterday when the board’s investigation aided by the ministry found nothing but the police investigation found sufficient information to press charges which proves the point that such complex and serious allegations are best investigated by the police? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am advised by the chair of the board of trustees that she has personally assured that member of the process that was followed. The police statements in the press I am not too sure about but I am most certain that the Ministry of Education has done its darnedest to ensure that this matter gets to a better place. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the ministry from this point has serious allegations of sexual abuse brought to its attention by a school seeking advice about what to do will the ministry in future advise that school to take such concerns to the police or is the Minister just going to rely on the media to perform that service for him? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is outrageous. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That is true. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is outrageous and the issue is that the ministry does its best and most certainly it has been informed by the chair of the board as that member was informed about the process. There is another issue that the chair informed the member about—stop politicising this ugly grubby matter and making it hard for those kids who are sitting their National Certificate of Educational Achievement right now; it is disgraceful. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister speaks of outrage is it not more outrageous that the ministry can deal with the concerns of a school for months and not offer the common-sense advice that the allegations should be taken to the police and is it not outrageous that the first the police hear about such serious allegations is from the local media when the police were contacted for comment? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is not true. The Ministry of Education is responsible for providing advice to boards about the proper conduct of investigations and the policies and procedures they have in place. Schools may also seek assistance from the New Zealand School Trustees Association which is contracted by the ministry to provide boards of trustees with administrative advice. The Education Review Office reports of 2004 and 2005 into Hato Paora School report no issues regarding the board of trustees complaints procedures. 
Gender Gap—New Zealand’s Performance 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What reports has she received on New Zealand’s performance regarding the gender gap relative to other countries? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand has one of the smallest gender gaps in the world. We are now ranked fifth out of 128 countries in the 2007  
Global Gender Gap Report 
. That is up two places from seventh position last year. New Zealand performed stronger than other countries because of the level of women in the workforce and their level of income. 
Sue Moroney 
: What other reports has the Minister received about the benefits gained by women under Labour? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: New Zealand is ranked fifth in the  
Global Gender Gap Report 
 behind Sweden Norway Finland and Iceland. Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly says our gender gap should be celebrated and he hails the report as an endorsement of New Zealand business and our way of life. This proves that Labour policies are making a difference for women with paid parental leave Working for Families and 20 free hours’ early childcare education. Although we are on the right track the gender pay gap is 12 percent and there is a lot more work to be done. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the Business New Zealand press release on the small gender pay gap. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the  
Global Gender Gap Report 
 which states we are fifth out of 128 countries. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Building—Tin-based Timber Treatment 
12.  
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Will he support an inquiry into the use of tin-based timber treatment noting the reports of builders coughing up blood and suffering headaches rashes and nose bleeds; if not why not? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am advised by the Department of Building and Housing that investigations are under way in consultation with appropriate agencies. I assure the member that the Government takes health and safety issues seriously. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why does the Government continue to allow the use of tributyltin naphthenate treatment of timber when the Australian Government notes that it is toxic and has a chemical burning property and when the US National Safety Council does not allow its use and there are more modern preservatives like azole that will do the job just as effectively? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Considerations of solvent abuse aside as I said there are three agencies. Let me outline them. There is the Environmental Risk Management Authority obviously which dealt with the quality of the material the member refers to; the Occupational Safety and Health Service in terms of safety and health; and the Minister’s department the Department of Building and Housing which deals with the building industry. All those agencies have been summoned together to deal with the issues the member has outlined and if the member has further information I will gladly receive it. 
Lesley Soper 
: Is the Minister aware of any steps taken to educate builders about the safe handling of treated timber? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes. The department has published a booklet entitled  
Timber Treatment 
 which provides guidance on how to handle treated timber safely. I am advised that the booklet has been distributed to over 100000 people who work in the industry. The department also recently published a safety code in the department sector magazine in the May-June issue. The member has raised a number of very important issues. He has written to the Environmental Risk Management Authority he has written to the Occupational Safety and Health Service and he has written to my officials. Rest assured that we will deal with the issue. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why has the Government made the timber treatment standard so complicated resulting in the use of unsafe chemicals and why does he not give it a good dose of the “kiss” principle—keep it simple stupid? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Given that we are talking about people’s well-being I will eschew any references to mirrors in relation to that member. I am advised that the treatment has been approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in terms of it being dealt with in an appropriate handling regime manner. But the member has raised a very good question and officials will be looking at it. Mr Clarkson is welcome to bring any additional information to me or indeed to come and see me. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Does the new Minister intend to act quickly so that the carpenters can stop coughing up blood or is he going to drag this out like the previous Minister Mr Clayton Cosgrove? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I repeat that I look forward to Mr Clarkson bringing any information that will expedite the settlement of these problems. It is an extraordinary allegation to make that any official in the department will not treat this matter with the urgency it desires; and given the member’s much-vaunted background in the sector I look forward to hearing from him. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Does the Minister think that someone has made a blunder when it is recommended by the timber treatment processors that carpenters should wear overalls rubber gumboots rubber gloves a head cover and a respirator; and will we end up with “ninja” carpenters? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The president of the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand has pointed out that this particular problem is actually diminishing and indeed Mr Clarkson has probably been told that. If he has any additional information that will help in an examination of the issues would he please come and see the responsible Minister. 
Urgent Debates 
Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release today of the State Services Commissioner’s report on the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and Mr Brownlee has provided the necessary authenticating material. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the leaked release of evidence obtained by the police during their investigation into potential terrorism activity in New Zealand. Mr Mark has given no authenticating information with his letter. His application is therefore declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept that Mr Brownlee’s application does require the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the member to move that the House take note of a particular matter of urgent public importance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. This is a matter that requires urgent public attention. New Zealand and New Zealanders rely very heavily on a neutral Public Service. One of the things that New Zealand is able to tout about itself around the world is that we are a country free of corruption a country where officials will deal with people in a fair and reasonable manner and a country where the politics are stable because the bureaucracy that backs up all the political activity or the policy delivery is free from the sort of encumbrance that many countries put over the top of those who serve them in their Civil Services. I think that both the report generated by Don Hunn and the response to it from Dr Prebble are important for us to consider at some length. Therefore I thank the Speaker for giving the country the opportunity to hear all the points in an extended debate on this particular issue. 
The first point is that the issue arose out of the decision by the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment to effectively sack a communications manager because she was in a relationship with a press secretary who worked for the Leader of the Opposition. There was never a question asked about anyone’s political persuasion. A whole lot of assumptions were behind the decision. What is interesting about Mr Hunn’s report—which I hasten to say is not a report that reaches any conclusions or makes any recommendations but is simply a chronology of how events that relate to this issue unfolded over a period of some months—is that it is apparent that the Ministry for the Environment effectively headhunted Madeleine Setchell to come and take on the job of communications manager. This is something that was unknown to me before it was released today. The ministry went through a process of advertising for people and it went through interviews but it made no appointment. The ministry went out and looked to see whom it could get to do the job and it identified Madeleine Setchell because of her professionalism and the capability she had demonstrated over a long number of years in the communications industry. 
Taking an aside it is interesting that the only person who comes out of this report with any credit at all is Madeleine Setchell. The Ministry for the Environment invited her to come and discuss a job with it. During the interview process she made it abundantly clear that she was in a relationship with a press secretary in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. She discussed the fact that on previous occasions her partner had had jobs in the New Zealand media where there could have been an equal conflict of interest perceived and she discussed how the pair of them managed that issue. The people on the interview panel—remembering that there was not just one person on the interview panel but three people—accepted that in her mind there was an understanding of potential conflict and a willingness to engage in managing that conflict. They were convinced that no issue would arise from her employment. 
However some days later someone in the then Minister for the Environment’s office a Mr Hurring heard that Madeleine Setchell had been appointed. Interestingly Mr Hurring works for the Minister’s office but has a long long background as a political activist. He is paid for by the State and was working in the then Minister for the Environment’s office. He phoned up the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and asked whether it was true about the relationship between Ms Setchell and the press secretary in Mr Key’s office. Mr Logan said he did not know of that but that he would investigate. That was Mr Logan’s first mistake. I will return to it in a few moments. 
Mr Logan made those investigations and found that it was true and he reported that to the then Minister. He appears to have gone into some sort of a blind panic. We assume that that was because he knew what sort of Minister he was dealing with. He knew he was dealing with a ruffian and with someone who was overtly political in the exercise of his ministry. I suspect that he was terrified to go and tell the Minister that the ministry had someone working on its communications who was connected to the National Party is this particular way—albeit at quite a long arm’s length distance. 
When Mr Logan had his discussion with Mr Benson-Pope the then Minister we are led to believe that Mr Benson-Pope rather calmly said that that might make it difficult for him to be free and frank. With that rather gentle piece of advice Mr Logan trekked back from the location of the meeting to his office summonsed Madeleine Setchell and told her that it was over and that she was going. In the Hunn report it states that Ms Setchell was shocked to get this news. She asked the chief executive why she was being asked to leave. In the Hunn report it is clear that the response from Mr Logan when she asked whether it was because the Minister did not want her in the job was yes. So here it is: there was Mr Logan firstly being cowered by the phone call from the political activist in David Benson-Pope’s office then having to front to the Minister with we assume trembling knees and finally having to go to Ms Setchell and say: “I’m sorry; I am not as frightened of you as I am of the Minister so you’re gone.” 
In the New Zealand system the chief executive is responsible for the employment of staff in the ministries. The chief executive should not cave in to that sort of pressure. The chief executive should not give away to the bullying tactics of any Minister. The chief executive most important should not give away to the hectoring of some party official who has located himself inside a Minister’s office. 
All this should not come as any particular surprise to us because the Ministry for the Environment has had a problem for a wee while. I refer to the Hunn report where it states that the Ministry for the Environment had decided to engage in an exercise of “realignment” and recognised that it would be the delivery arm for the “fourth plank in the Government’s three point strategic agenda of economic transformation”. I must say that wonderful line “the fourth plank in the Government’s three point strategic agenda of economic transformation” is absolutely typical of what one would expect from the left in this country. It means nothing and tells us nothing. The subtext is that the Ministry for the Environment will become a political arm of the Government. It is as simple as that. In the process of the ministry’s realigning itself to be a sort of Government-paid agency of the Labour Party staff and other resources had to be realigned to meet the new challenge. So it was no surprise that the moment that the Minister was made aware of Ms Setchell’s relationship she was gone. 
If anyone wants confirmation of just how political that particular ministry has become then he or she has to think back only a few months to when the Ministry for the Environment was running adverts in New Zealand newspapers stating: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda?”. The adverts went on to state: “We will be looking for people to be part of a ministry that is at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda.” This is not some sort of non-governmental organisation; it is a Government department. It is a Government department that is setting itself up to be another vehicle another part of the Labour Party. 
And the worst thing is that Mr Logan seems to have been singularly unaware of what he was doing. When he finally had to face the music over the dismissal of Madeleine Setchell he simply said to the public by way of a press release: “This is how I saw it. I was not aware when Madeleine Setchell was appointed to the position of communications manager that her partner was the Leader of the Opposition’s chief media adviser. This is something I should have been told. If I had been told I would have recognised before she was employed that I had a potential conflict of interest to consider.” That tells us that in Government departments now if someone is the best person and is the most capable of doing the job but has a relationship with someone in an Opposition political party then that person is out. That person is gone and has no place. Then Mr Logan stated: “I first knew of it through a phone call requesting information from the Minister’s adviser.” So he admits it was the paid party hack sitting in David Benson-Pope’s office watching these things for the Minister who got him on to the case of sacking Madeleine Setchell. 
As to the rest of what I would say about this matter I made the point before that it was the Minister who said to Mr Logan: “Get rid of her.” The interesting thing is that for nearly 4 weeks the Minister came into this House day after day saying that he knew nothing of this matter. He said that he was innocent that it was all a matter for the chief executive and that it was nothing to do with him. Well we know what happened to him in the end. He got found out. 
But the worst thing is that Mr Logan was talking through all of this time to the State Services Commissioner. The State Services Commissioner would have us believe that he gave the advice that it was wrong to get rid of Madeleine Setchell and that the proper thing to do would have been to manage the issue but that at the end of the day it was the chief executive’s decision. So when the chief executive caved and gave in the poor old State Services Commissioner was apparently powerless to do anything. I say in the House this afternoon that I do not believe that because there were 3 weeks—3 weeks—when the Minister as I said before was denying in the House that he knew anything about the matter. Conveniently during that period the State Services Commissioner wrote an article that was published in the  
Dominion Post 
 in which he stated that he believed that David Benson-Pope knew nothing of this matter. He put that in the newspaper and into the public arena when he knew it was wrong. 
How do we know that he knew it was wrong? Because when we look at the chronology put together by Mr Hunn we note that as early as the first week in July while Dr Prebble was on sabbatical in Britain the Deputy State Services Commissioner phoned him up to tell him what had happened and to tell him that this was becoming a bigger public issue. We are expected to believe that even through these conversations and through his sitting at his word processor writing out the article to be published in the  
Dominion Post 
 he did not remember that he knew that David Benson-Pope and his office had intervened directly to see Ms Setchell dismissed. That is not credible. That is not believable. If that is not a cover-up then it is bordering on a cover-up. 
This man now says that he has received Mr Hunn’s report and he has to decide what to do with it. He said to the Government Administration Committee today that he will do all sorts of things to put things back together. Well what is broken here? The only things that are broken here are the longstanding conventions that public servants do not act in an overtly political way and that Ministers do not dive into departments and start telling them how to act in an overtly political way. We are fortunate that only two departments are fingered in this report. We are worried about others but only two are fingered here. It seems to me that the man who has presided over that attack on our Public Service and on the credibility of public servants is the man who now says that even though he has not been totally straight with us he wants the opportunity to continue to see what can be done to tidy things up. Well that also is not credible and I have to say it is barely tenable. 
I think that New Zealanders need to ask themselves a serious question: if Government members are so willing to politicise the Public Service for their own ends why should New Zealanders not believe that the Electoral Finance Bill that members have in front of them at the moment is an attempt to simply say that because Government members are so good and so capable and because they are so out of step with the rest of the country the best thing is that they should be allowed to dip into the taxpayer dollar legally to ensure their re-election next year? These two items are not disconnected and they have an awfully large “c” word—corruption—that sits right over the top of them. 
This report from Mr Hunn is a good one because it tells us what really happened. The report from Dr Prebble is an excuse. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The Hunn report discloses the series of mistakes that were made within the State Service in dealing with this issue. The first thing I would emphasise is that this Government accepts that the impartiality of the Public Service is an important plank of the constitutional settings we have in New Zealand. For that reason the Government was of the view that there should be an inquiry and that it should be carried out by someone whose integrity was beyond being impugned: Mr Hunn. I thank Mr Brownlee for his acknowledgment that he holds Mr Hunn in that regard because there is at least agreement that the Government appointed an appropriate person to look at these events. 
The second point I would like to put on the record and would emphasise is a point that has been made previously by the Prime Minister when these issues arose—that is the person who comes out of this matter with a clean bill of health and as not having made any mistakes is Madeleine Setchell. She was a person caught up in events here that do not reflect poorly upon her at all. She conducted herself properly throughout these events and she should feel well respected in the community as a consequence of her integrity being upheld in this report. 
Madeleine Setchell was interviewed by staff at the Ministry for the Environment for the position of manager of communications. It was a senior role as is evidenced by the fact that she was being paid effectively the same as most members of Parliament here are paid. This was not a junior role; it was a senior role within the ministry. It is clear that at the interview she properly disclosed her relationship with the senior press adviser in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. 
The first adverse comment Mr Hunn makes is that he fails to understand why that disclosure was not passed on by the staff in the Ministry for the Environment to Mr Logan. In that regard I think that Mr Logan can feel let down by his own staff. They obviously made a mistake in not making that disclosure and I have a suspicion on reading the report that they did not really become fulsome in their proper disclosure of that even when the issue of Madeleine Setchell’s potential conflict of interest became known to Mr Logan. 
Mr Logan was not told of that and then a rumour circulated. I do not know where that rumour started but we know that the rumour was passed on to a staff member in Mr Benson-Pope’s office. David Benson-Pope’s staff member quite properly—and Mr Hunn acknowledges that it was proper for him to do so—asked the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment whether the rumour was true. Mr Hunn said there was nothing wrong with that: it was quite a proper inquiry to make and it was not out of the ordinary. It has no doubt happened in the past and it will no doubt happen in the future and it would be a sad day if there could not be such a level of openness that if people heard that sort of rumour they could not inquire of the chief executive as to whether it was true. 
The chief executive then quite properly consulted with the State Services Commissioner Dr Prebble. Dr Prebble—and this again is not contested by anyone; this is accepted by Mr Logan and by Mr Hunn—told him that he thought the conflict of interest could be managed without a requirement that Madeleine Setchell have a different role notwithstanding the difficulties that might have been seen in the Minister’s office. The State Services Commissioner was quite clear in his advice to Mr Logan that the potential conflict of interest should not be problematic and could be managed. 
However in that same advice it was also emphasised to Mr Logan that at law decisions relating to the employment of public servants in the Ministry for the Environment were decisions for Mr Logan to make not for the State Services Commission. So although Dr Prebble gave that advice and expected Mr Logan to take that advice into account—which he no doubt did—it was also within the power of and indeed the duty of Mr Logan to make his own decision. 
Mr Logan then raised the issue of Ms Setchell’s potential conflict of interest with her. I think one of the mistakes that Mr Logan should regret most in this matter was that when he dealt with Ms Setchell he was less than sensitive as to her position. It appears to be likely that even then he was being told by his own staff members that Ms Setchell had made a disclosure of some conflict of interest rather than a fulsome disclosure of the nature of that conflict of interest. We now know that that was not correct. Ms Setchell had made a full disclosure and Mr Logan in presenting his view—having no doubt been told this by his staff members—that there had been only a less than adequate disclosure of that interest was incorrect. 
I can understand Ms Setchell feeling aggrieved that her integrity from her point of view was being questioned. She made it quite clear that she wanted her reputation within the Ministry for the Environment protected by it being made clear and properly acknowledged that she had fully and properly disclosed her potential conflict of interest. One of the findings of Mr Hunn was that that was not the way in which these issues were approached with her indeed not just verbally but also in the written documents that came forward to Ms Setchell when she was offered an alternative position within the ministry. The wording surrounding that offer I think was insulting to her and questioned her integrity and viewpoint because it seemed to suggest that she had been less than fulsome in her disclosures which plainly was not the case. 
It subsequently transpired that an agreement was reached with Ms Setchell. That was another cause of criticism by Mr Hunn and the State Services Commission in that it led to a confidential settlement with Ms Setchell. I agree with those criticisms; I do not like these sorts of settlements to be confidential. Occasionally the need to reach a settlement with someone who is rightly aggrieved is inevitable somewhere in the Public Service but these issues ought not to be done on the basis of confidentiality. The ministry has subsequently said that it would be willing to waive that confidentiality but of course it cannot do that off its own bat. It is no criticism of Madeleine Setchell that she does not want that confidentiality raised; that is her right. That confidentiality was offered to her albeit wrongly by the Ministry for the Environment and it is her right to have the confidentiality of that settlement now upheld. I do not know the amount of the settlement. The former State Services Commissioner Mr Hunn said he thought it was within the range of what would be an acceptable outcome but of course we do not know what it was. 
The next stage in this catalogue of errors was of course the failure of the State Services Commissioner to remember that Mr Logan had told him about his conversation with David Benson-Pope. That is something that Mr Brownlee has just characterised as some evidence of collusion between the Government and the State Services Commission and/or Mr Logan. It is very clear from the report that in actual fact amongst those who were misled as a consequence of that forgetfulness on the part of Dr Prebble was the Government. The reports that came from the Deputy State Services Commissioner Mr Rennie while Dr Prebble was overseas to the then Minister Annette King were from the point of view of the Government fulsome. But they contained no reference to the discussion that Mr Logan had had with David Benson-Pope. That was to the disadvantage of the Government rather than to its advantage and the issue was not well handled by the State Services Commission. So the Government can feel a little let down as a consequence of what occurred here. 
Subsequent to that there were issues relating to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry where Madeleine Setchell made inquiries as to whether she might find employment there. I would make the point that the suggestion that she has been blacklisted throughout the Public Service is incorrect; there has been no such blacklisting. As I understand it she is obviously a very skilled person and got employment within a short period of weeks with Victoria University as it happens and I hope she is happy in that position. I think the comments that Mr Anderton made to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A Crown entity. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Victoria University is a Crown entity albeit more independent than a Government department. 
I also refer to the parts of the report on about page 37 from memory for the benefit of those who have a copy of the report that deal with Mr Anderton’s comments in this matter. I thought Mr Anderton’s comments were very mature very considered and consistent at the time and later. They obviously struck a chord with Mr Hunn because he reported them in full and I think commented on them reasonably positively or cast them in a positive light. He made the point that it is very difficult in some of these situations where the conflict arises from a family relationship—with one’s spouse or partner—and where the other person is working in a highly politicised position. These events only occur rarely but he made the point that it makes the person who is put into that position the possible butt of suspicion when things go wrong. That would have been a difficult position for Madeleine Setchell to be put in and it shows that this issue was difficult for all concerned albeit it was not handled well. 
Now what should the consequences be? Obviously there have been mistakes here and the question is: what consequences are proportionate? The first point to make here is that people’s future livelihoods and careers are at stake. We have to act wisely and justly and not overreact. Dr Prebble’s mistake for example did not change the outcome for Madeleine Setchell—that has been made clear by Mr Hunn. His mistakes all really ran from his forgetfulness in respect of the conversation that he had had with Mr Logan but they did not change the outcome for Madeleine Setchell. They did cause embarrassment for the Government. How do we rate that? 
Dr Prebble has been a senior public servant for many many years not just for this Government but for prior Governments. He has been the head of two of the most important Government departments: the State Services Commission and before that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is hard to find a person who has had a more senior career. If the Government was to overreact here we would bring that career to an end. 
Dr Prebble has made it clear that if the Government has lost confidence in him he would go quietly—he would merely resign. The view of the Government and my view is that that would be an overreaction and disproportionate to what has happened. There is no suggestion of dishonesty on the part of Dr Prebble. His was a sin of omission. It was not deliberate; he forgot. As Mr Hunn said in his report Murphy’s Law was rife. When these things started to go wrong they went wrong when people were in different parts of the world at times where cellphone coverage was poor. The events multiplied because different mistakes were made by different people. The situation does not reflect well on Dr Prebble and he knows that. He has had to face up to public scrutiny and public criticism. I for one think it would be wrong to let his career end on that note. I have confidence in his ability to continue to serve his country as he has done for decades to date. 
In terms of the outcome for Mr Logan that is of course not a matter for Ministers; it is for the State Services Commissioner—and I am sure he has decided on that after taking advice from senior colleagues within the commission. 
I think that this inquiry shows that New Zealand has an open and a transparent attitude towards the Public Service. Both the Government and the Opposition which I think is sincere believe that the Public Service should be beyond reproach and not politicised. It is clear that the Hunn report quite explicitly says nothing that any of the Ministers or Ministers’ offices did went beyond what has been an historical norm. They did nothing wrong. Mistakes were made within the State sector and various steps have been laid out by the State Services Commission to make sure that those errors are not repeated. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is not my intention to take a long call because the Minister in particular has outlined the details behind this issue which has become known as the Madeleine Setchell case. Let me say from the outset that Madeleine Setchell has committed no offence whatsoever in our view at all. She is totally innocent. She was upfront at the very beginning apparently and she behaved impeccably. I have no doubt that she offered the Minister at that particular time all the competencies she possessed. 
New Zealand First does not have the view at all that she is in any way in error. But having said that our general view is that we can understand why a Minister—particularly the one involved—would not want to employ somebody or see somebody engaged in his or her office who had a relationship with somebody in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. We can understand that. So the mistakes in our view are twofold. The first is around the employment of Madeleine Setchell. We believe that that could have and should have been handled a lot better. The second is the way in which she was dispensed with. That could have and should have been handled a lot better. 
There have been a lot of losers in this case. The Minister has resigned. He has lost his ministerial warrant and he is likely to lose his career as an MP. Madeleine Setchell herself lost her job. I have no doubt that it reflects very hard on her. New Zealand First would like to wish her well and in the fullness of time I am hopeful that she will put this whole thing behind her. 
Hugh Logan has been found wanting to put it in a nutshell. Apparently he is to lose his performance bonus which represents something like 15 percent of his salary. Dr Prebble the State Services Commissioner also feels as though he has let the side down. I believe he has intimated that if the Government were so inclined he would resign completely. I agree with the Minister David Parker that that would be unnecessary and unfair. But unquestionably Dr Prebble is feeling as though he has let the side down a little bit. The aim of the game must be for the Government and those who represent it who employ people to do it properly—to do it professionally fairly and in a reasonable manner. If they are to dispense with people they should equally do that reasonably fairly and compassionately. 
I do not think there is anything more that New Zealand First wants to add to this debate. We wish that the matter had not occurred but we are hopeful that the Government and the Public Service people— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What do you think about Dr Prebble? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have already addressed that issue. The member should stay awake from time to time. We think that this whole issue is a sorry state of affairs. We hope that the Government has learnt the lessons when it comes to employing people and more important dispensing with them. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Green Party certainly intends to make a contribution to this debate but as often happens with debates such as this our contributor is running just a few minutes late. We are quite happy if another speaker wants to take the opportunity to speak in the meantime and we will take our time as we can. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The speaking slots are pre-allocated but there is no reason why members cannot change position. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no reason why not; it often happens. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a question of following the right process here Madam Assistant Speaker. There is a pre-allocated order that we stick to. It has the effect that those members who are at number 10 on the list have to wait around for an hour and a half listening to excellent speeches before they can give theirs. There are two ways of changing that. One is by arrangement between the whips and that has not happened as far as I am aware. The second way is by leave and that has not been sought as far as I am aware. So we will either stick to the processes around these allocated spots or have a free-for-all again in the general debate—one way or another. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is usually a fairly amicable negotiation Mr English. It is often signalled by the whips. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I just inform the House that the Maori Party will not be taking a call in this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you for that. Obviously all parties are entitled to speak. New Zealand First has spoken. The Maori Party is not going to speak. United Future and ACT are not here. The Greens have indicated that they wish to speak and National and Labour have one more speech each. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order follows the ruling that you have just given. I have the sheet in front of me. We have just heard from New Zealand First. The arrangement according to the schedule is that the Greens should have 10 minutes followed by the Maori Party for 10 minutes United Future for 5 minutes and ACT for 5 minutes before we get back to National and Labour which have 10 minutes each. I seek your clarification on whether it is open to another party to seek the call and have that speaking slot should the Maori Party as has been indicated not wish to take its speaking slot. For example although I am not allowed to refer to members not being in the Chamber I will say that I cannot see any ACT members right now. I seek your clarification as to whether members from other parties can seek to take up that slot notwithstanding the arrangement that is on the schedule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We will just check that out Mr McCully. I will read from Appendix A of the Standing Orders “Debate on motion to take note of matter of urgent public importance”. The mover and the next speaker have 15 minutes each and the subsequent six speakers have 10 minutes each. So it is down to the members. I just need to check on whether those speaking slots can be transferred as the member asked. I have been advised that the allocation is a guideline so in that circumstance I cannot see any reason why another speaker cannot take a call. Did the member wish to speak? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I will take the call. It does seem odd to be spending time in Parliament avoiding the opportunity to speak although I would recommend it to some members.  
The question that the Government needs to ask itself today is why no one believes what the Government says about the Setchell affair. What has the Government said? Well the Minister of State Services showed himself to be totally unsuitable for the job that he has which is to develop the capacity of the State sector and to protect it from misguided political influence when he said today in the House that nothing that any of the Ministers did was wrong. If that is the case why did one of them get sacked? He said that nothing that any of the Ministers did was wrong. The politician in this House whom we are all meant to rely on as the guardian of the Public Service picked up the reports—there are two of them—read them through and came to the conclusion that nothing that any of Ministers did was wrong. That is absolutely unbelievable. Not only did Ministers do something wrong once but the reports reveal that two different Ministers did it; it happened twice. 
Then the Minister moved on to the perfect excuse that the Labour Party has dreamt up: it was the officials. We had a discussion in the select committee this morning with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. My colleague Lockwood Smith mused over the rather startling fact that the Government believes that all its major political problems and there have been many through this term occurred because of officials. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not all of them. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes that is right. But the rest of them with the exception of Mr Mallard’s problem occurred because of the officials and again that is what has happened today. The Minister of State Services said that nothing that any of the Ministers did was wrong that mistakes were made in the State sector and that the State Services Commission would make sure that those mistakes would not happen again. 
Let us look at what did go wrong because there is a larger question of culture that the Government has to answer. It is summed up in this question: why did the chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry a very experienced public servant consult his Minister before he appointed Ms Setchell? Why did he do it? The Minister of State Services should have explained that to us today. I will tell members why he did it. 
Hon Member 
: He made a mistake. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh it is because he made a mistake! No actually he did not. He acted in a way that was totally consistent with the culture that Labour has created around the Public Service which is “Don’t do something a Minister doesn’t want or you’ll get dealt to.” It is not just a no-surprises policy; it is a “guarantee of retribution” policy. 
So a senior public servant Murray Sherwin who has served in a range of public agencies over many years would know better than almost anyone else in the Public Service about what happens in a Public Service under pressure and he decided that he would go to his Minister before he made a staff appointment. What is even worse is that that Minister who said: “No don’t employ that person.” for purely political reasons was one of the most vigorous defenders of David Benson-Pope in this House. He knew that he had done worse than David Benson-Pope because he was consulted in such a clear manner and the email record shows he gave an unequivocal response which was then acted on in a way that was even sneakier than trying to sack an existing public servant. He is the Minister Jim Anderton who got up in this House and defended David Benson-Pope most strongly. 
Two other Ministers did things that were wrong: the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. They should have been here today apologising to Ms Setchell. It was they who said in public that she did not properly reveal her conflict of interest. This report shows absolutely without doubt that she did. The Minister of State Services has confirmed that. He said that she had acted properly. Don Hunn said it and Mr Prebble said it. Dr Cullen and Helen Clark are on record in public as accusing this innocent member of the New Zealand public of having a lack of integrity. They should apologise for it. 
In fact the integrity of this person is at the nub of the problems in the State sector. She made the mistake of insisting on her integrity. Is that not a big problem? That is the biggest mistake that was made. She said to her employer to the Public Service: “You must record that I acted with integrity.” The Public Service under Labour would not do it and still has not done it. It refuses to. It said: “No here’s the money. Go away.” That is the consistency—Michael Cullen and Helen Clark in public nailing an innocent public servant for not having the integrity to declare her conflict of interest. Public servants felt so compelled by this rotten atmosphere that Labour has created in the Public Service that they would not concede Ms Setchell the one thing she was left with: her integrity. She lost her job. She lost her opportunity to ever be employed in the Public Service. She wanted to walk away with something that does not cost a politician to recognise and they would not do it. There has been no apology from the leaders of the Labour Government who impugned her and no recognition from the Public Service which would not even bring itself to record it on a piece of paper as requested. 
This is all part of a culture that led to another public servant Hugh Logan realising just what challenges he had ahead of him. He discovered after Ms Setchell had been appointed that his department was going to be catapulted into the political front line. It is no wonder he was concerned. He knew that that meant he and his department were going to get the continuous attention of the biggest political bully in Cabinet apart from Trevor Mallard and that is David Benson-Pope—and both of them have suffered the consequences of this—as well as the Prime Minister’s office. He was going to be expected to run right through election year on the most political issue the Government had and that was sustainability. In my view he panicked. He knew he would get a bollocking from the top of the Government to the bottom if he did not get rid of Ms Setchell. Did the Prime Minister’s office ring and tell him to do it? No. It is worse than that. He knew he had to do it. That is what I mean by the culture. 
It is not the actual events on which Mr Prebble tries to hang his hat; it is the culture within which he and other Ministers are operating where they do not understand how off-track they have become. They do not understand it as was summed up by the Minister of State Services the person who should know best when he said that no Ministers had done anything wrong. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There was no crime committed. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh that is the standard—fantastic; another Cunliffean moment! They did nothing wrong because no crime was committed! Have we not heard that before from Helen Clark? Her standard is whether an action is criminal—not whether it is right not whether it is respectful not whether it values people’s integrity and not whether it reflects the conventions of the constitution of New Zealand but whether it is criminal. And who better to articulate it than “Wonder Boy” on the front bench newly finding his straps in another Cunliffean moment? Well that sums it up: one of the bright stars said that nothing wrong had happened and the other bright star said that it was not criminal. That beautifully sums up the Labour attitude; it beautifully sums up why these simple events spiralled out of control and they will dog Labour to its grave. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will take a relatively brief call on behalf of the Green Party because I think this issue is fairly simple in its essence. We congratulate Mr Hunn on the report. I think that it has re-established the principle of a politically neutral Civil Service. That is particularly important on all sorts of levels. 
On the first level we do not want people discriminated against because of their political views. We have a politically diverse society one that is reflected in this House under MMP and we want to maintain that. We do not want anyone to feel that his or her career opportunities are in any way hindered by his or her political views. Our Government should encompass the range of political views that exists in this society. It makes it a more efficient Civil Service too because it means that the Government can draw on the full range of expertise in the community and not exclude a section of the community whose expertise because of those people’s political views would otherwise not be acceptable. Our Civil Service would be weaker if that were to be the case. 
A further element is that in any good Government situation it is actually an advantage to have a range of political advice. In some ways although people’s advice might be politically coloured to some extent however much they try to take it out different ways of looking at things within our Civil Service lead to better decision-making. The Government of the day can take the political advice or leave it and having a certain range there is important. 
Although political advice might be politically coloured to some extent I think we have to accept that people can be very professional in separating their obvious political bias and even their actual political bias from the expert advice they give to Ministers and from the role they play in the Civil Service. We have all sorts of examples of that and some Ministers have said that after several years they still do not quite know the political leanings of the people giving them advice. I think it shows the effectiveness of a professional Civil Service that one can read a report or listen to advice but say that the adviser is very professional has taken the criteria that have been laid down and has given the best advice under those criteria. 
The other reason why the Green Party is supportive of re-establishing a politically neutral Civil Service is that to not have such a service is disruptive of community and personal relations. This is particularly true in a relatively small city like Wellington where people tend to know other people and where the career paths of people in a particular family or within a particular bed are often quite disparate. One member of the family or one partner cannot be damned with the politics or the career path of another. We have to trust people. If we do not have that basic trust then we are going down a very difficult track. 
One of the things that makes our political system quite good and quite healthy—and I have noticed that in some ways it is true of smaller nations smaller societies be it New Zealand Ireland Norway or other Scandinavian countries—is the small scale of our country our society our political system and our cities. In some ways there is an advantage as there is a social and political mixing that helps us to reach a sort of consensus as a society and helps us to move forward politically. Having those clear rules about having a politically neutral Civil Service actually assists that because even the most dyed-in-the-wool conservative often comes up in his or her social life against people with quite radical views of the left against radical Greens or against whomever else. 
That debate is not only in this Parliament but also outside Parliament in every party in every sports club and so on and that is good. We do not want people saying they do not want to go to a particular party because that will affect their career path or that they do not want to mix with a particular sort of person because that will affect their career path. They may say that they do not want to go out on a date with a particular man or woman because that might affect their career path. So if we do not have a politically neutral Civil Service it is disruptive of our society and disruptive of people’s lives in general. 
This issue does relate to the current events around the alleged terrorism raids etc. but I have great confidence that we can move through this because we have social networks and we have ways of engaging between communities. I saw some of the younger Tuhoe people outside here today and clearly they were quite angry. That matter is related to the topic at hand; we have a society in which political views can engage where the community has goodwill. Within that framework of goodwill we can allow people with a whole range of political views to take up a whole range of Government positions in a politically neutral way and we can accept their professionalism. 
The Green Party is very pleased that the Hunn report has established that the State Services Commissioner and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment have both accepted some fault in this matter. We have been put back on the right track with the assistance of Mr Hunn. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do not think I need to take the full 10 minutes but there are some things that need rehearsing. I regret deeply the comments made by Gerry Brownlee in particular in regard to the State Services Commissioner. There has been a tradition in this House of working with the commissioner and of not politicising that role in the way that Mr Brownlee did. I will get back to that later on. 
I join with the Prime Minister at question time and the Minister of State Services earlier in this debate in putting on the record of this House that Madeleine Setchell acted appropriately. It is now shown by these reports that she acted with integrity; she made the declaration that was appropriate. There was a very bad failure within the Ministry for the Environment of that declaration not being escalated to the notice of the chief executive at the beginning of the process. That is one of a series of errors that occurred which led to what I think is a very unfortunate situation indeed. 
That was then followed by a questionable decision—in fact an incorrect decision—on the part of the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment in not giving serious enough consideration to the views expressed to him by the State Services Commissioner. I have no doubt that there was an ability to manage that relationship within the original position. Such situations happen regularly within the Public Service and within the broader State sector within New Zealand. One of the results of being a relatively small society is that we develop methods of handling this sort of issue. A lot of it relies on the integrity of the individuals and my view on this is that in a New Zealand situation one trusts people until there is evidence that they have acted inappropriately. That with the proper systems set up would have been the proper approach to have taken originally with Madeleine Setchell in this process. So I think that was unfortunate. 
I think the decision not to give to her the written assurance and the comments to her team that she sought was a further mistake because she had acted properly. Probably excessive regard was being given to legal advice around Employment Court consequences. I think it is proper to treat people well to start with even if that might mean a disadvantage later in the process. Even when the process was over the Hunn report shows that a written declaration that should have been made was not made and I think that was wrong. 
I want to place on the record of the House that I was the person who chaired the panel that appointed Dr Prebble as State Services Commissioner. Dr Prebble is someone who has had a long-term career within the Public Service. He has been in all three senior roles in all three of the central agencies. He is someone who knows probably better than anyone how to manage relationships where there is a political aspect to them. We should remember the fact that his brother was a high-profile Cabinet Minister member of Parliament and party leader for a period of time. If anyone knows how to give advice on managing this sort of conflict then Dr Prebble is that person. 
I also want to place on record that there are a lot of views Dr Prebble has that I disagree with. He is a person who is not afraid to test Ministers—and I was his Minister—and to argue to push and to discuss things. But in the end when a decision is made Dr Prebble is someone who implements it and he does so in a proper and very professional way. He made a mistake. It is a mistake that is part of a chain that had no effect on Madeleine Setchell and that is clear. His forgetting the conversation actually ended up having no effect on the decision that Hugh Logan made with regard to Madeleine Setchell. It might have had some effect on reputation and the way the thing was handled afterwards and I accept that but the core decision—Dr Prebble’s memory lapse—did not. 
I ask members opposite whether they have ever had a memory lapse. Have they ever made a mistake? Have they ever not done something they should have done? Of course we all make mistakes. We all do. Generally they are not quite as public as the mistake Dr Prebble made on this occasion. He has effectively fined himself; he has given some money back. He cannot cut his own salary because that is something that the Remuneration Authority decides and that is something he will face up to next time he comes in front of the authority I am sure in terms of changing the curve. But he has done what I think is an honourable thing: he has written out a cheque—my guess on the maths makes it somewhere around $10000—and paid it back. If members opposite were fined $10000 every time they made a mistake then the Government coffers would be well filled. The surplus would be doubled probably. 
The next point I make which I think is an important one is to acknowledge the fact that Don Hunn has done a very thorough job in this process. I want to make it clear that the decision to involve Don Hunn in the report was the decision of Dr Prebble. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It was the Prime Minister twisting his arm. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well there is no doubt the Government’s view was that it was important there be an independent look at Dr Prebble’s action and that has occurred. Don Hunn is someone who also has had a very good reputation long term. He was the first of what we might call the modern State Services Commissioners in the middle 1980s and I think he has done a very thorough job. 
I finish as I started by saying that it is very unfortunate that Madeleine Setchell has been caught up in a series of errors. It is my view that her employment could have been managed in a way that was appropriate and that her reputation has not been enhanced by this performance and I regret that very much. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I will start by agreeing with a couple of things that have been said by members opposite in this debate. First of all I agree in large measure with Mr Mallard’s analysis about what should have happened in the management of Ms Setchell’s employment relationship. His was a constructive analysis of the situation. I also agree with the Minister of State Services who asserted to the House that one does not go lightly trashing careers of considerable length and distinction in the Public Service. The further thing I agree with is the positive comments that have been made about Don Hunn. I have a longstanding relationship with him in terms of working with him and I certainly respect him. I think his factual analysis provided as part of this report is useful. 
But it is at about that point that I part company with members opposite. I do so because I sat in on the Government Administration Committee this morning without having had the opportunity to read either the Prebble report or the Hunn report but having had the opportunity only to skim both. I want to share with Mr Mallard and other members of the House the problem that members on this side genuinely have—and I emphasise the word “genuinely”—in dealing with our view of Dr Prebble in these circumstances. I think I could best summarise it by saying that I welcome the Hunn report but that my first beef with the Prebble report is that it does not start off with the words “Once upon a time”. The reason is that finding any relationship between the report drafted by Dr Prebble and the facts as they are known to members on this side of the House is not easy. 
Let me start by taking members through the key features of Dr Prebble’s findings. First Dr Prebble asks us to believe that Mr Logan chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment despite having been told in words of one syllable by his Minister Mr Benson-Pope that he would not accept Ms Setchell in his office and would not be able to work with her had no regard for that exchange when he decided completely independently to disengage her from her employment with the Ministry for the Environment. We are asked to believe that somehow what Mr Benson-Pope did had no bearing on Mr Logan’s independent decision and that is a stretch. Then we are supposed to believe that Mr Hurring who was employed in the office of Mr Benson-Pope and who is an associate of Mr Mallard’s—he has been to the “Trevor Mallard School of Charm and Etiquette”—in his dealings with the Ministry for the Environment had no influence over the decision that Mr Logan made. That is an even bigger stretch. 
Then we find out that there had been an application by Ms Setchell—and I did not know this until I read the report—for a job at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We are told that the chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry independently and quite unrelated to any exchange he had with Mr Anderton as Minister decided not to employ Ms Setchell in that ministry. That is a bit of a stretch. Then we find that the Ministry of Education did not even bother to reply to her application. So it is a coincidence that Mr Benson-Pope had some stern conversations with Mr Logan and then Mr Logan decided to disengage Ms Setchell. It is a coincidence that Mr Hurring has some Mallard-like exchanges with Mr Logan and then Mr Logan dispenses with Ms Setchell’s services. It is another coincidence that Mr Anderton has an exchange with his chief executive and then that chief executive coincidentally decides not to employ Ms Setchell. Then we find that all of these coincidences come together in a form called the Prebble report. Members on this side of the House have very great difficulty in accepting that at face value. 
I sat on the select committee this morning and I asked Dr Prebble this question point blank. I said to him: “Can you assure me that you believe that if Ms Setchell applies today for a senior communications role in a Government department she has as good a chance as any other similarly qualified person of landing that job?”. He assured me that he believed that. I do not know anybody else from the National side who believed that. I did not see anybody from in the assembled press gallery who believed it. 
That is the fundamental problem we have—that Dr Prebble is telling us that Mr Logan made a decision without any influence from Mr Benson-Pope and we do not believe that. Dr Prebble is telling us that the persuasion exerted by Mr Hurring did not have any influence over the decision to disengage Ms Setchell. We do not believe that. Dr Prebble is asking us to believe that the role at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was denied Ms Setchell for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr Anderton’s discussion with the chief executive of that ministry and we do not believe that. We have been asked to believe that the application for a job at the Ministry of Education was unsuccessful for no reason related to Ms Setchell’s relationships with people connected to this side of the House and we do not believe that either. 
Neither do we believe that when Dr Prebble wrote an article telling New Zealanders that Mr Benson-Pope had nothing to do with the decision of Mr Logan to disengage Ms Setchell that was anything other than an attempt to mislead New Zealanders. When I put it to Dr Prebble this morning that New Zealanders would have felt misled by that statement more misled by his failure to correct it and even more misled when it occurred to people that it was an enormously convenient thing for the Government that had happened here Dr Prebble had no adequate response other than to point to the amnesia that seems to be increasingly afflicting his work. I say to members opposite that that will cause members on this side of the House to read both reports very carefully and to have some very careful discussions. We are mindful of the statement made by the Minister of State Services today that one does not lightly go around trashing longstanding and distinguished careers. But we have these profound problems and having listened to the explanations and finding ourselves unable to accept them we then have to ask ourselves whether we can have confidence in this man as the chief executive of the State Services Commission and the most senior public servant in our land. 
We are not impressed to find that Dr Prebble is then to mete out his punishment to himself having acted as his own judge and jury. He invited in a few of his chief executives and said: “Guys I want you to ignore for a minute the fact that I’m your boss. I want you to put aside the fact that I’m going to do your performance review. I want you to put aside the fact that I’m going to decide whether you’re going to get a bonus this year and I want you to ignore the fact that I’m going to decide whether you get reappointed. And I want you to tell me what sort of punishment you think I should give myself in these circumstances.” They said 2.5 percent of his salary. On his salary that is somewhat more than members on this side of the House would regard as adequate! 
I say that in these circumstances we will reflect carefully on these reports. We will read them carefully and ask ourselves in a deliberate way whether we have confidence in Dr Prebble as a result of these two reports today. I say to members opposite that Dr Prebble has made it enormously difficult for members on this side of the House to be able to answer that question in the affirmative. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debate 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today I want to use some visual aids as I am entitled to do under Standing Order 108. The first of them is the most amazing front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
that I think anyone will have ever read. An entire front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
is dedicated to an issue called “Democracy under attack”. I want members to know that this is the only time in my time in politics I have seen a newspaper such as the  
New Zealand Herald  
use its front page for its editorial. It is the only time I have ever seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
reserve the entire front page for one entire story. 
The  
New Zealand Herald 
 has been very critical of Governments in the past. I remember that when we were in office it gave the National Government a smack around for various things but never for anything to the extent of a headline stating “Democracy under attack”. If we started to read this article as many Auckland people who subscribe to this newspaper have done and then heard it discussed on talkback as it kicked in during the day— 
Jill Pettis 
: It’s a Tory rag. My grandmother would never have it in the house. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Jill Pettis the Labour Party star who is heading towards oblivion says that the  
New Zealand Herald  
is a “Tory rag”. Well I am afraid that it reports some things in this article that are bloodcurdling and I want to share with members what it says: “Practically every other participant in New Zealand politics—not only parties but other interested organisations and especially guardians of political rights—has voiced concern at the implications of the Electoral Finance Bill introduced to Parliament …” and asked for it to be scrapped. 
If it concerned the National Party only I could understand why Labour would say “Oh that’s just a Tory rag.” but here is a group that I would not have been the greatest advocate for over the years: the Human Rights Commission. I said some pretty dreadful things about Ros Noonan when she was involved in the report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy which Trevor de Cleene said was the biggest doorstop that had ever been produced in the world; I did not think she was that great. But the “Tory rag” reports the Human Rights Commission as saying that the bill is “a ‘dramatic assault’ on fundamental rights which ‘undermines the legitimacy of political processes’.” That is what the commission said—the Human Rights Commission in what is supposed to be the “Tory rag”—and it gets worse because all sorts of other organisations have been going on about it. People might choose to read the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
which a lot of New Zealanders are now doing. 
I have a message for the Labour Party and it is this: “When you are in a hole stop digging; even when it’s really deep and you think you might get away with it stop digging.” because accompanying that bill is another bill on the Order Paper of this Parliament called the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Most people out there in television land will not know what that means but I want to tell them because my second visual aid is a cracker. It is a Labour Party propaganda brochure with a picture of Angelina Jolie in the middle—I think it is Angelina Jolie; that is what it looks like to me does it not? No I have the wrong person. 
Judith Collins 
: It is Helen Clark. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No if it were Helen Clark or supposed to be then under the Fair Trading Act there would be a case of breach for portraying a product that was not real. I believe it is Angelina Jolie or it might be Morticia Addams but it is not Helen Clark. 
On this brochure are seven pledges about what Labour would do and then on the back some ghastly photos of people like Parekura Horomia and Trevor Mallard stating “Labour will …”; “Labour will …”. It is just covered with pledges. What would we say of this a 2005 release? Well it certainly has to be electioneering and it must certainly have been paid for from the Labour Party coffers. Then what do we find down the front here? Oh it is the parliamentary crest. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Jill Pettis says “Yes.” It is the parliamentary crest so that the poor old hard-serving taxpayer is the one who has paid for this picture of Angelina Jolie—I hope Labour got the rights to use it—to be put on Labour’s page of seven pledges. 
The Labour Party has used public money to get itself elected. And now as the  
New Zealand Herald  
says it is taking two specific courses of action: firstly to ban anybody else from having the right to have a say and secondly to make everything the Labour Party does legal and legitimate. It is a disgrace. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Numerous times during the speech from the Hon Mr Williamson Mrs Pettis interjected loudly shrieking Mr Williamson’s Christian name as part of the interjection in a manner that was disorderly. I am surprised that she as a former presiding officer did that and I would like to invite you to explain to her what the rules of the House are in that respect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. 
Jill Pettis 
: I apologise to Mr Williamson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for doing that. Behaviour like that is not acceptable during a member’s speech. Thank you for raising that Mr McCully. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Newsflash! The  
New Zealand Herald  
is in campaign mode again. The press we are told to believe never has a view of its own never has a bias and never gets the facts wrong. The press has a crystal ball. It knows what a select committee is going to do to a bill before the committee has even reported back. The press remembers every detail of Nicky Hager’s book  
The Hollow Men 
. Yeah right! It has upheld the pillars of democracy against the sneaky pernicious campaign of the Exclusive Brethren. Yeah right! It fought vigorously against the rather more well-heeled and subtle pseudo-thinktank the Maxim Institute. Yeah right! 
It might come as a newsflash to the Opposition but the reason the Labour Government has won three elections in a row and is looking good for a fourth is that it cares about Kiwis and its actions show that it cares. This Labour-led Government looks after the old the young the sick the crippled and the unemployed with great gusto and it will keep on doing just that. Labour is following in the traditions of Mickey Savage Norm Kirk and yes Dick Seddon and is providing security for New Zealanders from the cradle to the grave. That is what Kiwis know about Labour and that is why they are going to have a Labour-led Government for the next 3 years. The little flowers of the Opposition are going to wilt away and a new generation of baby Tories will replace them at the helm. 
I will give members a few stats from the health portfolio. Here is concrete proof that even the  
New Zealand Herald  
cannot ignore. Since 1999 we have seen 4000 additional nurses; 1300 new medical personnel; 28 new public hospitals from Kaitaia to Invercargill; the largest immunisation campaign in New Zealand’s history; $2.2 billion pumped into primary health care thus halving annual doctors’ fees for ordinary Kiwis not doubling them like Tony Ryall would do; 7500 extra cataract operations; 10000 extra hip and knee operations; the largest campaign against obesity in New Zealand’s history; and on and on it goes. So while the Opposition thinks that it has had a lucky break because it found a newspaper that woke up in campaign mode Labour has been getting on with doing the work doing the mahi and making ordinary Kiwis’ lives better day by day week by week year by year and making a difference. 
The saddest thing about the Opposition is that it is led by an agreeable chap who benefited from a State house when he was growing up. He knows what it is like when ill fortune strikes so what he has grown up to do? He has grown up to try to take opportunities away from people just like him. 
Judith Collins 
: That is nasty. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh oh! The member opposite disagrees. Has she had amnesia? Well the health system might help her. Has she forgotten that National flogged off most of the State housing stock in the 1990s? I tell Mrs Collins that Kiwis have not forgotten the 1990s even if she has. 
Kiwis have not forgotten the Employment Contracts Act. They have not forgotten how crippling it is to be unemployed. They have not forgotten what a Tory Government means for New Zealand. That is why the press got in a lather when Tony Ryall told the truth about doctors’ fees. That is why it got in a lather when the Hon Bill English—and I use the word advisedly—said that he would indeed privatise State-owned enterprises. To make that admission about privatisation was a very honourable thing to do. And the mask slipped because the country saw once again what a return to a National-led Government would mean for ordinary New Zealanders: back to the 1990s back to bulk funding back to selling off the family silver back to opening the country up to the control of foreigners and back to wrecking the welfare State. Goodbye Mickey Savage goodbye “Big Norm” goodbye King Dick and here we go market forces—fantastic! That is why we are on the Treasury benches and National members are on those benches and that is why we will stay here and they will stay there. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We have just heard from the man who is in charge now David Cunliffe. He is in fact the man who is “running the show” which was what he said after 24 hours of fake humility and talking about how he was going to consult. As soon as he had a little interjection from my bench mate the Hon Tony Ryall what did “Captain Cunliffe” say? He said: “I am running this show” and he basically said that Annette King and Pete Hodgson were absolutely hopeless he was now in charge that was fantastic and everything would be great. 
What has happened? What has he told us today? He told us that the Labour Government apparently cares about the little people in New Zealand. I think that is a wonderful notion. But unfortunately one of the little people in New Zealand whom this Labour-led Government did not care about and does not care about is Madeleine Setchell. In fact this Labour-led Government has sat back and has allowed two Ministers—not just one but two—to actively engage in making sure that Madeleine Setchell could not conduct her work as a communications manager in the Public Service. The third ministry education did not even bother to reply to her application for a job. 
What we found out from the Hunn report released this morning—which the Opposition was offered a briefing on for 15 minutes before it went public in the usual display of political neutrality we seem to get from this Government and from the Public Service under Dr Prebble—was that Jim Anderton who has been a Minister since forever and who has been in Parliament for a very long time made sure that Madeleine Setchell did not even get a job in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. His method was to say to the chief executive: “Well of course it’s up to you but it could be very difficult for Ms Setchell because people might be talking about her. People might think that she’d pass on information to her partner who works in the office of John Key. People might be talking.” So what did Mr Anderton do? He said: “Well you make up your mind.” and apparently the chief executive took his cue and—guess what—made up his mind that Ms Setchell would be politically unsavoury for this Government. 
That is what is happening in the Public Service. We now have a culture of political interference that is so bad that chief executives have to trot along to the Minister to see whether a veto will be applied. As we have heard from the Hunn report in two cases—that of Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Anderton—Ms Setchell got the veto. We have heard nothing today from Helen Clark and Michael Cullen by way of an apology to Madeleine Setchell. They were the ones who said Ms Setchell had not been up upfront enough about her relationship. Ms Setchell had been upfront and that is absolutely plain from the Hunn report. Ms Setchell had been totally honest because Ms Setchell is an honest person. She has worked for a long time in the Public Service and she understands about managing any perceived conflict of interest. 
Is it not interesting that under this Government Ms Setchell did not apparently have a perceived conflict of interest while her partner worked for a major newspaper. That was fine. That was absolutely positively fine. 
Shane Ardern 
: It was a neutral newspaper then. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was apparently then a neutral newspaper. Absolutely—yet we have just heard from the previous speaker that apparently it is not neutral any more. We are now being told by the Labour-led Government that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is a Tory rag. I have a bit of news for those members. We always know that members are in trouble in this game when they start to bag the media. The fact is that the media will report what the media want to report. The media are not there as our servants—which is unfortunate we sometimes think—and they will report stuff that we do not like and this Government cannot stand it. It was all right for Madeleine Setchell when her partner worked for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 but as soon as he was working with John Key suddenly she could not be trusted in the Public Service. That is what this Government said. Even the New Zealand Public Service Association the union that supports and funds so much of the Labour Party’s activities came out and said that that was not OK. 
This is the first time we have heard about Mr Anderton’s efforts. Why has he been so quiet on this issue today? Where is his apology for Ms Setchell? That is what these people have done—they have tried to destroy this woman’s career. The Ministry of Education did not bother even to look at her application and did not bother even to reply—and this Government is going to use taxpayers’ money to campaign with. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 What a negative lot the National members are! They are a very lacklustre Opposition. I am very pleased to be part of a positive Labour Government that is doing so much and doing very real things that make a very real difference in people’s lives in this country. Meanwhile all the Opposition can do is to bleat and bleat and then copy Labour’s policies. What a weak-kneed Opposition it is indeed! I want to draw the attention of those listening to this debate to some of the differences between the Labour Government—which is going ahead and has delivered so much to this country already and has such a bright future ahead of it—and the performance of the Opposition. 
Let us take for example the Labour team members and compare them with their opposite numbers on the Opposition benches. What would it be like to have Tony Ryall as the Minister of Health for example? I think the people who care about our health system and who depend upon it to be an accessible system where they can get their health care might be worried at Tony Ryall’s view and—yes—John Key’s view that doctors should be able to charge what they like for their fees basically giving doctors a blank cheque to increase fees as much as they like. That is not on—not under Labour. We have been very clear that we have halved doctors’ fees and we will continue to work in that direction. We will be clear with doctors that we expect those fees to stay reasonable. So would people in this country rather have David Cunliffe with his bright new ideas for the future or the ever-bitter Tony Ryall as the Minister of Health? I think there is no competition. 
I would also argue that when it comes to looking after this country’s social development New Zealanders would rather have Ruth Dyson as Minister over the likes of Judith Collins. We have just heard Judith Collins speaking with all her bitterness and rage and she was not able to say anything positive. She could only grasp at straws about the Hunn report which was published today. 
Let us look at a vital issue of importance to this country—transport. I would put my money on having Annette King as a go-ahead Minister of Transport over Maurice Williamson any day of the week. When he was in charge of that portfolio he could not build a single road in this country. So there is no competition there. If it is a choice between Annette King and Maurice Williamson for better transport in this country I know where my money sits. 
Let us look at climate change. That will be the issue of the future. Would we put the future of this country and the issue of climate change into the hands of David Parker under Labour? He is a very serious and committed Minister. He knows his business and he goes about doing that not with fanfare but seriously and calmly as he puts out the right policies in the direction. Or would we rather have the frenetic Nick Smith as the Minister dealing with climate change issues? I think most New Zealanders would put their hands up and say: “David Parker any day of the week on that one thank you.” Let us look at the area of local government. I would back my colleague Nanaia Mahuta any day of the week over John Carter as the Minister of Local Government. Nanaia Mahuta is one of those people who understand consultation very thoroughly. I am not sure the same can be said for John Carter. 
I would also pick Nanaia Mahuta as the Minister of Youth Affairs over Nicky Wagner any day of the week. Has anyone heard of Nicky Wagner? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who? 
SUE MORONEY 
: She is the Opposition spokesperson on youth affairs. I am not sure I have heard her say anything yet. I certainly have not heard her say anything positive about the youth of our country. 
It is the Labour team that has the ideas for the future of this country. I am very pleased that in the recent Cabinet reshuffle I was given the opportunity of becoming the junior whip for our party. In that role I am able to see a very committed team in absolute unity with collectivity of purpose. It is fabulous to be involved in such a role with a fabulous group of people who absolutely understand that unity not division is critical to the future success of this country. It is no wonder that during the nearly 8 years of this Labour-led Government New Zealand has been able to turn the corner. It has been able to turn the corner because the failed market-led policies of the 1990s have been ditched at least by this side of the House. But it is clearly evident they have not been ditched by National. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Today is a disturbing time to be a New Zealander. I wonder whether there has ever been a more disturbing time in our history. I never thought that in my lifetime I would see a leading New Zealand newspaper state on its front page “Democracy under attack”. The Labour members and their New Zealand First coalition partners can sit there sneer and toss off a newspaper as being a Tory rag but I suggest that they take a step backwards and just reflect for a moment on where they are actually taking New Zealand. 
When I take the warning of the  
New Zealand Herald  
of early this week and when I consider the report that was issued today on Ms Setchell I realise that one thing is becoming increasingly clear: New Zealanders are concerned. The message that is coming out—and it is clear and unequivocal—is that this Labour Government supported by its New Zealand First coalition partners has taken the State sector and turned it increasingly into an extension of the political party that for not much longer now governs this country. 
I say to Ms Setchell that she did nothing wrong. She is the victim of behaviour on the part of people who should have known better: from a Cabinet Minister to a chief executive to political appointees in a Minister’s office. They should have known better. It is a disgrace that this young lady’s name is being raised so often in this House today. It is good at least to have seen a little decency on the part of a couple of Ministers—which I have to say is not being matched by members in the House at the moment—who acknowledged that she did nothing wrong. 
I want to reflect on the number of people whom I have employed over time. Never did I need to know whom they voted for. Never did I need to know their political sympathies. Never did I need to know with whom they were in a relationship. What has happened in New Zealand that a young woman who applied for and was appointed to a job—as was her right—has to lose that job because people were concerned about whom she was in a relationship with? People were concerned about any political or other views that she might have. Is there anything more rotten in a democracy than that? 
I believe that a number of people need to reflect very very carefully on their role in this matter and that goes as far as “Dr 2.5 percent Prebble”. The point has been made in the House and it must be made again that in an environment where the Government has politicised the Public Service in New Zealand and has worked very very hard to make the Public Service an extension of the political party it will be very very difficult for members on this side of the House to have confidence in those in whom trust was placed to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Today a very concerned group of Tuhoe people came to Parliament to express their anger at what had happened to them back on 15 October when their homes and community were blockaded by black-garbed anti-terrorist police who were heavily armed and wearing balaclavas. People were forced out of their cars treated as criminals and photographed beside cards in violation of our law. Today on the steps of Parliament I and other MPs from different parties have listened to their anger. My message when I spoke to them today and it is the same as my message to the Government and to all New Zealanders is that there has to be a better way—a way of respecting all communities a way of bringing them together and not acting as if a whole community were made up of terrorists. 
We have to recognise the hurt of the Tuhoe people and recognise that they have longstanding grievances some dating back to the confiscations of the 19th century. We have to address these issues and we also have to use the good community policing processes that we have built up over the last few years. If the police felt that something was going wrong why did they not turn to their iwi liaison officers? Why were those officers sidelined in favour of a massive surveillance operation for over a year which intercepted the communications of a large chunk of the community and of thousands of New Zealanders around the country? 
It is almost as if the police wanted there to be some sort of terrorist plot. Of course when a huge anti-terrorist capability is developed in the police force there is a certain institutional pressure for the police to want to use it on some people in this country. They forgot their essential crime prevention mission which is just as important as crime detection and prosecution. They could have brought iwi liaison officers into play much earlier if they thought that people were going off-track. But those iwi liaison officers were ignored and sidelined completely on 15 October by the “shock and awe” operation of the terrorist squad. 
In the same sensationalist vein the  
Dominion Post  
today carried lurid details supposedly from the police case. It stated that publication was in the public interest. It is in the public interest long term for New Zealanders to know what happened and to get some of the factual background but that is best disclosed in a public inquiry after the court cases that will proceed shortly on arms charges. The  
Dominion Post  
has prejudiced—possibly fatally prejudiced—those cases. They may have to be aborted altogether. We should wait for a proper public inquiry that can do three main things: firstly bring out the factual situation and put it in context with input not only from the police but from others in the community and others affected; secondly cover policing—cover what was done right and what was done wrong in the police operation and find out what we can learn from it and how we can improve it in terms of building community relations and better crime detection and solution—and thirdly I think as part of that reinforce the role of community liaison officers such as iwi liaison officers and perhaps develop another category of liaison officer called a political liaison officer. 
Plenty of people—and I include myself in this—know some of those who were arrested. There are a lot of wise heads in the political community of people active in social change issues environmental issues and the like who would have jumped at the chance to bring their wisdom to bear if they had been alerted to anything going wrong. That perhaps can be an outcome of all of this. 
We should do the listening. That is what the Law Commission will do now that the Terrorism Suppression Act has been referred to it. We perhaps need to listen to the people we did not listen to when the Act was passed in 2002: all those groups that said that it was a politically biased Act that could affect them as political activists. We should consider whether their claims about the Act and about the recent Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill mean that we should go back to the Crimes Act and get away from these political offences and we should deal with serious criminality through that Act. We should also not go down the track of just increasing surveillance; there are better ways. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The one thing that we would probably find some common ground on is that we do enjoy a great country. It is a place of privilege and in comparison with many other countries it is certainly a safe place. There has been a lot of debate over the last couple of days on some activities that have been conducted but can I say this: violence of any kind in any of our communities should not be tolerated. There is a place in New Zealand as a safe society for peaceful protest and we as parliamentarians know the importance and the heritage of that. But when violent activities of any kind happen whether in the home or in our communities we as parliamentarians are forced to show some kind of leadership as to where a way forward might be. 
We are all experts in hindsight. We all can say how things could have been done better. Certainly on the issues raised by Mr Locke I am absolutely sure that in terms of the activities conducted in Ruatoki there will be some reflection as to what could have been done better. That is a responsible message that should be heard near and far and it is something that should be picked up on. If the day ever comes in New Zealand—and certainly in this Parliament—where people are actively supporting tension and continued tension for a negative outcome then we should caution ourselves because that is not the kind of New Zealand that I want to be a part of. 
Constructive engagement in this area would want to see Tuhoe actively engaging in ways that mean they can continue to reach their aspirations. That means carrying on with the Treaty settlement process. That means constructive engagement from here on in with the iwi liaison officers in their areas in order to give life to their memorandum of understanding with the police. That will also ensure continued engagement of all services with those people to ensure that no opportunity is missed by them or their children. 
But let us look at the context of this debate. I think my colleague David Cunliffe really hit home what this debate is about. It is not about political pot-shots although the Opposition would like it to be. It is about understanding what differentiates us and what we value as a Government in the role we have as responsible leaders in this country. It is about ensuring that we have a really good health system; that we have a really good education system that delivers to all our kids; that we will look after our environment; that we have a strong economy; that the social well-being we invest in continues to see opportunities for all our kids; and that we support young people families with children and also our kaumatua—our old people. 
In particular I want to talk about the strategies that the Labour-led Government is taking to support kaumatua. As members know in 2001 we launched the Positive Ageing Strategy. What did that say? It said that we wanted to ensure that in Aotearoa New Zealand our kaumatua can age positively that they continue to be valued in our communities and in our society and that we will work alongside communities to ensure that kaumatua well-being can be achieved. There is a lot that can be said about this area and I really want to highlight some points. 
Members know that in this term as part of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First we have increased the floor for New Zealand superannuation to no less than 66 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly wage for a married couple. That is fantastic and it is significant for a number of our kaumatua. We have also increased the appropriate income thresholds to ensure that all kaumatua and veteran pensioners who receive the disability allowance and/or the community services card remain eligible following the 1 April 2007 adjustment. 
Also in July last year we removed the sharing expenses rule. In the past that rule meant that some single superannuitants were prevented from getting the living alone payment if their families were helping to pay some of their household expenses such as contributing to the power bill or something like that. We have also ensured that the rates rebate scheme where people can claim a rebate of up to a maximum of $500 travels through to far more people. In fact 300000 people will be eligible this year as opposed to the old scheme under which only about 4000 people were getting rates rebates. 
We abolished the mandatory requirement for age-based driving tests for people aged 89 years and over not to mention the gains referred to by the Minister of Health—extra hip and knee operations and more cataract operations. All this contributes to positive ageing for kaumatua and all these gains continue to support their well-being. Those are the gains under a Labour-led Government that cares about kaumatua well-being. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a sad day indeed for the New Zealand Parliament when one Opposition member after another has to rise and raise the issue of the employment by a Government department of a person who has no political aspirations to the best of my knowledge and who is totally neutral in regard to her political involvement. We have to rise in defence of the process that should be in place and that has been in place for a long time. But it is even worse when we are doing that with a Labour Government in power. 
Labour campaigned up and down the country prior to the 1999 election about how it would put in place law that protected the employment of individuals. The very foundations the Labour Party is built on are around protecting and looking after those who serve the public and who work in the public sector. 
I do not want to canvass everything that my senior colleagues have already canvassed but we saw today in the select committee a senior bureaucrat a senior public servant with over 30 years’ experience in the Public Service skipping and jumping across the top of pinheads because of the intimidation that has seeped through this Government—intimidation that has now been placed on public servants in this country. The only place we can look to blame for that is right at the head of the Government. We can go right to the top to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the senior Ministers involved in the process. 
We have a woman Madeleine Setchell who was headhunted—we found out today—for a position. She declared her involvement with or link to the National Party—tenuous though it is. We should look at the facts around that link. Her partner is a former  
New Zealand Herald  
reporter who came to work for the National Party. I do not have a clue what his politics are but I would suggest to members that prior to his appointment to that position he probably favoured the Labour Party. I would not mind putting money on it that he has probably voted for Labour at least once twice or three times in his life until he saw the light and changed sides. 
He came to work for the National Party. He has no influence over what his partner’s politics might be and I defy members in this House to stand up and hand on heart tell us today that they all know exactly which way their partners have always voted right from the time they first voted. 
Jill Pettis 
: Shane you’ve been sniffing those tractor fumes too much. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I would ask the members interjecting from the other side of the House whether it is right that a Government department goes out and headhunts somebody employs that person and then that person is down the road because the Minister says that he or she cannot work with that person and to get rid of that person and send him or her off. I ask whether that is right. 
You see it goes right to the heart of democracy. If we have a Government department that cannot give its Ministers information or advice without fear or favour then we have corruption. I have visited Nigeria along with a recently promoted Minister in the Labour Government. I tell members to look at what happens there. Because there is such a high level of Government control or fear in that country there is corruption. 
I say to Government members opposite that they should be ashamed of what has been reported today in the Hunn report. They should take immediate action to make sure that something similar to this incident never happens again. 
Let us look at some of the facts. Madeleine Setchell lost her job so she applied for another job with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We would imagine that that would be a sensible thing to do given that she was headhunted initially. That is where she thought her best career opportunity lay. But Minister Anderton stepped in. He is not a member of the Labour Party—we all know that—but he has certainly had a long history with the Labour Government. He has been a member of the Labour Government and he has certainly been someone who has campaigned up and down the country to protect workers from the evil excesses of those to the right of centre. 
The report states that Mr Anderton told his chief executive that he did not think Ms Setchell was suitable for the job. I say that that it is wrong and that the Government is rotten to the core. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava warm Pacific greetings to you all. I have my hand on my heart because I am so honoured and humbled to be appointed as Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. This provides me with a great opportunity to build on the huge economic and social gains made by our Pacific people under this Labour-led Government. The Pacific community has been asking for a Pacific Island Minister so it is a huge privilege for me to be appointed as the first Pacific Island woman Minister and Minister of Pacific Island Affairs and this could happen only under a Labour Government. 
Our party has a strong history of advocating for Pacific people. It was Norman Kirk’s Labour Government that acknowledged by establishing our ministry the value that Pacific people were adding to New Zealand through economic social cultural spiritual and sporting contributions. 
Under our Government Pacific people have made real gains. Helen Clark has provided strong leadership and the Labour-led Government has developed and implemented a wide range of sound policies. We have turned round the hurt the damage and the misery of the previous decade of neglect under National when our people suffered the most. The economist Carl Davidson commented that the policies of the 1990s under National destroyed and eroded Pacific people’s self-confidence. They suffered terribly under the harsh economic and social policies that impacted on the ground. 
However under Labour hand on heart unemployment has halved. Figures released last week showed that our Pacific unemployment has dropped down from 14.9 percent in 1999 to 5.5 percent in 2007 and that is great news. Working for Families is also increasing the incomes of thousands of our families. People only have to visit many of our people on the ground to see a lovely positive spirit that is happening. Of course there is KiwiSaver and we have learnt a lot from our elders about how it is important to put money away to save for one’s future to save to buy one’s first home but also for retirement. As for health: yes it is much cheaper to go to the doctor. That is important for our families but more important for our children. The other additional support that we have offered—because we have a younger population and it is important that investment goes into our children—is the 20 hours’ free early childhood education that is saving $4500 per year per child for each of our families. 
I will give members a bit of a human story. Yesterday I went to Cannons Creek School with the wife of the President of Uruguay. That is a low-decile—decile 1—primary school in my Mana electorate in Porirua. Approximately 90 percent of the students are Pacific children and they are benefiting enormously from the Labour-led Government’s programmes. There is big investment in literacy and numeracy there is the Fruit in Schools programme and there is the linking up of parents and caregivers with the teachers and the children so they can be supported to help their children. The reading programmes at schools have been enhanced and it is lovely to see the Computers in Homes programme that our Government is supporting. The children have created a beautiful website and a DVD from Patricia Grace’s story about children in Cannons Creek School. Those are all fabulous examples of seeing our children walk with pride determined to learn and determined to be amongst the global leaders of the future. 
Our Pasifika education plan is also showing that our children are starting to do much better in terms of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and they are participating much more in tertiary education. In Modern Apprenticeships Pacific people are only 3 percent but we are working to up that number. I get a good positive feel from our people on the ground. It is also important for Pacific young people that we have wiped the interest on student loans so they can be encouraged to go on to tertiary education to study and to be part of our Government’s determination to absolutely transform us and of its commitment to the global economy. 
I am also excited because this week in fact on Monday night the Hon Mahara Okeroa went to the celebrations honouring New Zealand’s Pasifika artists at the Arts Pasifika Awards. It was fabulous to see our Labour-led Government putting investment in the arts because it is important for our children and young people. I will read out the names of the winners: Justine Simei-Barton Dr Okusitino Mahina Nina Nawalowalo Sale Pepe Sani Muliaumaseali’i and the WakaUra Cultural Dance Company. They represented film makers actors opera singers painters and artists. I am very excited about this Labour-led Government and am proud to be part of the Labour team. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Yesterday in a debate in the House Jeanette Fitzsimons employed an interesting term. I think she talked about a “phoney debate” to describe the misinformation and political point-scoring that has been dominating the political landscape at present in regard to parliamentary and election funding legislation. I suspect that the 17 percent of New Zealanders who live with a disability would rather that we spent the same amount of passion the same amount of energy and the same amount of time prioritising and focusing on their ongoing and unmet need to enjoy inclusion. 
In New Zealand we have a first-class strategy document which means that we cannot hide behind the excuse that we do not know what needs doing. We have established a Minister for Disability Issues which I presume means that we have at some time in the past identified the need to put some effort into advocating for this sizeable sector. We have an Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner that provides disabled people with somewhere to register complaints. However that is only as long as those complaints fit prescribed parameters. We have closed down residential institutions because we now subscribe to a philosophy of support that believes disabled folk are well able to live a normal life. 
We have the theory right but the fact is that this sector is the only one that is given virtually no say in the services and support it gets. Most of the people in it live a long way from normal lives. As the political momentum builds and picks up speed and as we start hurtling towards an election will we be trying to outdo each other with policies to improve the development of a world-class workforce to support those with disabilities? Will the two old parties be trying to outbid each other with promises to improve respite services for parents who are exhausted by the day-to-day care of children with high and complex needs? Will they be competing to see who can come up with the most innovative way to develop more individualised packages of care and funding so that disabled adults can take control of their lives and their own destinies? I seriously doubt it and this is why: the challenges are complicated and they are often considered to be in the too-hard basket. In New Zealand we talk about celebrating diversity but we do not seem to include the disabled as a vibrant part of our diverse make-up and because we do not value their contribution we do not prioritise their inclusion. 
Of the 570300 adults with a disability that Statistics New Zealand tells us about 209500 have low support needs 268000 have medium support needs and a whopping 97700 have high support needs. Sixty percent of adults with disabilities have multiple disabilities. Three-quarters of those with disabilities do not qualify for support under Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provisions and they look over the fence with justifiable envy at their ACC counterparts due to the measurably better services and support that they receive. 
Who is going into the next election championing the need to close this very unfair gap? I want to put up my hand and say United Future is going to do that. So where do we begin? A good suggestion as to where to begin is found in a motto often quoted by the Disabled Persons Assembly about not doing anything to or for disabled people without including them in the decision-making process. Currently we are committed to developing relationships across the sector and to listening and we are currently on a sharp learning curve. We put up our hands and say we are not experts but we have met to date with lots of people who are authentically connected to the issues faced on a daily basis by people in this sector. In our travels to date we have encountered considerable frustration by those who see huge amounts of money wasted on unwanted services while at the same time they experience funding shortages for items that they consider to be absolutely vital. 
As we go about on our travels we ask these people what their priority is. It is unsurprising that the answers vary. So at this stage we are not jumping out with some clever policy or platform. We have about a year before we will face an election and we have that considerable time to make sure that we go into the next election with a policy platform for those who are in this sector who are voters—17 percent of all New Zealanders as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—and who are just looking out for somebody to be their advocate. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call this afternoon in the general debate. It has been very interesting to listen to the National members’ claims during the debate this afternoon. Most of them do not stand up to much scrutiny at all. We are currently considering the Electoral Finance Bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee and I have had the opportunity to sit on the select committee a few times while evidence has been heard by it and while it is considering all of the submissions. I have to say listening to the debate in the House this afternoon that I have never heard so much bluff and bluster. 
I actually wonder what National members will say in the next few weeks when that bill comes back on to the floor of the House. Mr Maurice Williamson held up some campaign pamphlets that the Labour Party put out during the last election campaign but he omitted to mention any of the campaigning—the tactics and publications—that the National Party engaged in during the last election campaign. Do National members not remember all of those billboards that were plastered around our electorates or all of those pamphlets that were put into letterboxes as late as 6 o’clock on the night before the election? 
By coincidence I happen to have a National Party candidate’s campaign form here in front of me. It was totally funded from the parliamentary budget—the crest is relatively tiny. I am sure the member Dr Nick Smith’s photo has been airbrushed. In fact I am absolutely positive the member’s photo has been airbrushed and optically enhanced one would say given our knowledge of the member. So the National Party really is continuing to engage in bluff and bluster. There is not a great deal of sincerity to what National members are saying at all. During the last 8 years this Labour-led Government has delivered remarkable gains for New Zealanders and it is very proud of that. 
Further evidence of bluff blunder and bluster coming from National members is the completely erroneous claim that it is the only party of tax cuts. In fact Dr Michael Cullen revealed in the House today that research has shown that National has only tampered with tax once in the last 40 years and the one time it did tamper with tax it actually put up the business tax rate. I have to say National has quite successfully portrayed itself as the party of tax cuts and some of the media—some of those Tory rags—have gone along with National’s claims and printed the story that it is the party of tax cuts whereas the reality is that National has voted against every single one of Labour’s tax reduction policies since we have been in Government. National has voted against tax cuts more times than it has ever reduced tax rates. I repeat National has only ever tampered with tax once and that was to put up the tax rate. 
The facts are now out there: National is the party of tax increases; Labour is the party of tax reductions. During just this term of Government there have been three significant tax reductions by Labour and National has voted against them every single time. So the claim by National members that their party is the party of tax cuts does not hold water at all. Also more recently National has been caught out on the hoof through that vocal person who is its health spokesperson Mr Ryall. He was caught out when a very sharp journalist showed that National would increase the cost of going to a doctor. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Last Thursday Dr David Collins the Solicitor-General brought to an end the most bizarre act of political theatre this nation has seen since July 1984 when Rob Muldoon famously called a snap election after a late-night drinking session. However Dr Collins was stone-cold sober as he announced: “I am unable to authorise any prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.” In that one sentence Dr Collins brought an end to a sequence of events that had been unfolding in Aotearoa over a lifespan of 18 months. It was a sequence of events that amongst other never-to-be-forgotten moments included detaining people without charge for many hours including young children; taking people into custody at gunpoint; herding people into a shed and keeping them under guard for several hours; children hungry and crying and a girl as young as 15 being subjected to an intimate body search; searching and photographing innocent citizens while they were stopped at roadblocks; smashing into homes; and so it goes on. 
For the Tuhoe nation Black Monday will be forever etched in their memory as the day that police sought to blockade and lock down an entire community for the arrest of two people. The principal person whom they targeted lives in Whakatane and the police knew that—they had 18 months’ worth of evidence. On this day our armed police moved en masse into the peaceful valley of Ruatoki dressed in armed garb and masked. The fact that the late Sir John Turei a significant kaumatua of Tuhoe was Howard Broad’s adviser counted for nothing when Howard Broad sent his police storming into this community. Police iwi liaison officers who do a great job and are trusted by our people were not even considered. My colleagues have sat with these people and heard their stories and we will not forget. We will not forget the story of children being separated for 4 to 5 hours from their mother who was barricaded in another room. We will not forget the story of a young mother who was forcibly spread-eagled on the ground while her two teenaged daughters watched on. Clad only in bare nightwear they were motioned out on to the road and made to put their hands above their heads. 
Many New Zealanders watching  
Native Affairs 
 on the telly on Sunday nights would have heard the Minister of Police describe the people of Tuhoe as “collateral damage”—collateral subordinate secondary or additional. That is the language of death and these concepts are more commonly used to describe the aftermath of bombings in Iraq the costs of war against innocent civilians or damage that has occurred as a result of these actions. Was there compassion understanding or respect for the people of Tuhoe? No way. Tuhoe is the casualty that even the Commissioner of Police acknowledges it will take decades to heal and to repair. 
The atrocities that have occurred in the midst of our communities under the name of anti-terrorism have brought out the worst prejudice fear and political name-calling that this House has witnessed for some time. There are some people in this House who should remember their own history before they start putting labels on others. Perhaps one of the most shocking performances last week was the abuse that was laid into the Anglican Church which was accused of “bleating on” and of “using divisive victim-mentality thinking” for daring to call for a review or repeal of the anti-terrorism legislation. 
What we have seen in this last month is a division into power and powerlessness—a sense of false righteousness used to intimidate and cast doubt on those who dare to challenge the terror raids. But the question we are left with is who will hold Parliament to account for faulty flawed legislation? Who will hold the New Zealand Police and Police Commissioner Broad to account for an overly heavy all-powerful assault on the people of Tuhoe? There has never been any doubt that if laws have been broken crimes committed or regulations breached then the individual parties must be answerable to the law of the land and to the police with their 18 months of evidence some of which we have seen in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning that has been selectively chosen in the so-called interest of the public. But those upholding the law must never be above the law and that is why the Maori Party has called for Howard Broad to do the honourable thing and resign. Perhaps he must also be part of the collateral damage of Operation Eight. Kia ora. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to participate in this debate because I think it is important to alert the people of New Zealand who are listening this afternoon to the fact that this bill is an abomination. It is part of the campaign of democracy under attack which the New Zealand Labour Party has talked about this week. It is part of this Government’s plan to rort the electoral system and remove all the restrictions on parliamentary money being used to pay for campaign purposes. 
This bill in concert with the Electoral Finance Bill allows the Labour Party to rort the taxpayer yet again to fund its election campaign. This bill is all about changing the rules to suit the Labour Party. The old rules were clear. If parliamentary money is used to pay for something that is considered to be electioneering in the run-up to the election campaign in the 3 months before the election then it is caught as an election expense. It is absolutely clear. If parliamentary money is used to pay for election activity in the run-up to the election in that 3-month period then it is caught. 
That is what the Auditor-General found and it is what the Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party about. So what will this bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill allow? Instead of restricting in the 3 months before the election how much parliamentary money can be used to contribute to the election of a political party through advertising there will be no restriction through the whole of next year on what parties can spend. 
Members should look at some of the stuff that this bill will allow to be spent on in the run-up to the election. The brochure entitled  
Labour MPs: Women Report 
 talks about all the great things that the Labour Party is doing for women around New Zealand and about what people can do to get more information.  
What About Securing Your Future? 
 talks about all the things that Labour will do for people and about how Labour can make sure that those people get help and that their families can get ahead. What about the brochure  
World-Class Education 
? This brochure would not be illegal if it was not done during the election period. But under very clear rules that this bill changes this brochure will no longer be considered electioneering if it is put out in the 3 months before the election. 
What about this brochure entitled  
Supporting Kiwi Business 
? Here is another flyer from the Labour Party. It was put out 3 months before the election. It used to be caught as an election expense; now it will not be caught as an election expense because of this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill.  
Enhanced KiwiSaver: Investment for a Sustainable Future 
— 
Hon Member 
: Who’s that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This is a deceitful document because it has a deceitful photo on it that bears no real resemblance to the person purporting to be pictured in this document. If this document which talks about enhanced KiwiSaver is put out now it will not be an election expense but if it is put out in proximity to the election then it is an election expense under the old rules and has to be counted in the spending limit. But with this bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill Labour is saying that the document is no longer an election expense. 
Here is another red Labour Party flyer. There is a huge printing press in Wellington smothered in red ink that is pumping out this material every week. This flyer under the old rules would have been an election expense and declared in the 3 months before the election. The Government is now saying that the restrictions for everybody else apply for the whole of next year but Labour will be able to put out this flyer because these rules no longer apply to MPs. 
What about the pamphlet  
Healthy Wealthy and Wise 
? It is another brochure telling people how great the Labour Party is. Under the old rules if this pamphlet was put out in the 3 months before the election it would be electioneering. It is absolutely clear. It would have to be counted in the $2.4 million that Labour is allowed to spend. But now under this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill this pamphlet is no longer an election expense. 
Here is another Labour Party taxpayer-funded card—again with a picture on it of someone purporting to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand but bearing no physical resemblance to the woman I have to look at across the Chamber 3 days a week. She is with another chap the Minister for Ethnic Affairs—“Mr PC”—and the Minister of Education. He was handing out these cards at a Chinese New Year function in Wellington. The card states: “The Labour Party places great value on its relationship with the Chinese community in New Zealand.” If that card had been put out in the previous election period 3 months before the election it would have counted as an election expense. These cards were personally handed out by the Minister for Ethnic Affairs at a Chinese New Year function. But now under this bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill there is no restriction on Labour’s ability to do this. 
Here we are this is the mother of them all: “ 
My Commitment to You 
”. This pledge card together with this brochure paid for by the taxpayers at the last election is an election expense and in fact was an illegal use of taxpayers’ money at the last election. The Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer both told the Labour Party that this pledge card would have to be included as an election expense. But this bill legitimises the spending of that money on another parliamentary card. 
Had “ 
My Commitment to You 
” which was written with the use of New Zealand taxpayers’ money been put out at any other time it probably would not be a matter of dispute. But put out in the 3 months before the election in the regulated period it became not only illegal spending but also election spending. It had to be counted in Labour’s $2.4 million spending limit. But under this bill “ 
My Commitment to You 
” Labour’s pledge card is now legalised. Labour is now legalising the spending of $800000 on more Labour Party propaganda paid for by the taxpayers that is allowed to be distributed within days of the election. That is now legal and it will not count as an election expense. 
So let us talk about it. If this stuff were sent out today it would not be an election expense. But if it had been sent out 2 years ago it would have been an election expense because the old rules said to the Labour Party that if it used the taxpayers’ money to try to get votes and to encourage people to support a party the material would be caught as an election expense. That is what the Auditor-General said; that is what the Chief Electoral Officer said. But now Labour is changing the law. Labour says that the pledge card will now be able to be delivered within days of the election because the Government is changing the law to state that whatever MPs spend their money on in the run-up to the election it will not be an election expense. 
That is what this bill states together with the Electoral Finance Bill—whatever MPs spend of their parliamentary money in the run-up to the election it will not be an election expense. That means that everybody else in New Zealand will have to honour election spending limits except members of Parliament. So why are members of Parliament to be above the rules that everybody else is under? That is what all this material from Labour’s last election that I am holding up means; it all represents parliamentary-spent money designed to win votes for the Government. 
This material at any other time than an election period is allowed. But it is clear that under the old rules if it had been sent out during the election period of 3 months it would have had to count as election spending and there would have been serious concerns about its being spent at the taxpayers’ expense. The Labour Party knows it and that is why there is not a pip or a squeak from the shallow people opposite about it. They know that the plan is to allow the red printing press to roll on completely uncontrolled during the months before the election. 
This pledge card was illegal last election; under this bill the pledge card will no longer be illegal. There will be no need for the Labour Party to refund the cost of this card next election because this bill will make it legal. It puts in separate rules for members of Parliament. Let me just repeat that: the material sent out in the last election would have counted as election expenses. We know that because that is what the Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer said. But this material sent out with taxpayers’ money at the last election is to be counted no more because of this rort of a bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was quite a poor and pathetic attempt at moral outrage. Some people in the National Party do moral outrage well. Maurice Williamson does moral outrage really really well. Bill English actually does it quite well. But the squeak from that member which was like being savaged by a wet bus ticket is a very very poor excuse for moral outrage and indignation. 
Let us have a look at what the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill actually does; after hearing that rant no one would be any the wiser. At the moment there is funding from the Parliamentary Service that members of Parliament can spend. It covers all sorts of things—for example the funding of members’ electorate offices. The issue we have at the moment is that the legislative framework around the way in which that money is allocated and spent expires shortly and unless we pass this legislation all of that money could be frozen. So we are extending that expiry date to June 2009 so that people can get together in Parliament and come up with some rules that everybody agrees on. The National Party originally thought that that was a good idea but now it has backed off and tried to bring together this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill when in fact they are quite separate. 
Mr Ryall said there is no restriction. Of course clause 3(2) defines what “electioneering” is: “ ‘electioneering’ means any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote … or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party … or (d) solicits subscriptions or other financial support.” To say that there are no restrictions around this is just absolute garbage which is why the member although he tried to wind himself up could not get himself to that point— because he knew he was not quoting what was in the legislation. 
Then he did moral outrage about the Labour Party’s spending. Well is not this interesting? I have a pamphlet here that was put out recently. It is from Nick Smith MP for Nelson. It is a survey and newsletter. It talks about why we need a new Government and what Nick is doing in Nelson. It asks people to give their views on National’s view on taxes. I wonder who paid for this pamphlet. I wonder whether it was paid for by the good Nelson National Party members from the proceeds of cake stalls and doily sales. I wonder whether the National Party funded it. “Oh no!” I hear; it did not fund it. The good hard-working National folk of Nelson did not fund it; it was the good old taxpayer—oh yes. It was I think just a month or so ago. 
What is the little secret that tells me that this pamphlet was probably funded by the taxpayer? Well it is called the parliamentary crest. That is one of the things that need to happen now. If we spend money on communications to our electorates we need the parliamentary crest printed on them. So I ask the National Party who paid for this pamphlet. Did the Parliamentary Service pay for this? 
Anne Tolley 
: Who cares? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: We have just had moral outrage from National Party members going on about the Labour Party putting out documents explaining policy but when it comes to National’s publications they ask “Who cares?”—“Who cares?” they say. Well members over there cannot criticise the Labour Party for putting out information to electorates then say there is nothing wrong with Nick Smith doing it. You see this is the problem—the inconsistency of the National Party. So the moral indignation falls flat. 
Well this pamphlet was paid for by the Parliamentary Service; it was paid for by the taxpayer. I say to the National Party in answer to the question it asked last week that this bill legitimises the spending that the National Party gets now from the Parliamentary Service. 
So if those members oppose this legislation today I ask whether they will make a commitment. Will the next person stand up and say that they are opposed to this bill that they will spend not one cent of the money from the Parliamentary Service and that they will not put out more pamphlets like that? Will they say that? Will they give that commitment now? Will the National Party if it votes against this legislation now agree never to put out anything like that pamphlet from now on? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: We play by the rules. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh I see; we cannot get a “No”. So they are going to vote against this legislation then carry on putting out leaflets like that one. There is a word for that Madam Chair and you know members know and I know—everybody here knows—that we are not allowed to say it. We are probably not allowed even to intimate what that word is. I do not think we are allowed even to say that it begins with “h”. But it certainly is a word that should not be accepted in this Chamber. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Unlike the previous member I am going to speak to clause 1 which is the title clause. I understand the title to be “Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill”. 
Well the use of the word “Interim” is a joke because last year we were told that the last legislation was going to be interim but the Government is simply rolling it over and this bill will expire on 30 June 2009. Of course the Labour Government will be gone by then and the legislation would have been repealed long before then. But in the unlikely event that the Government is still there the legislation will be rolled over again. The legislation should be called “Authorisation of Next Year’s Pledge Card Bill” to be read in conjunction with the Electoral Finance Bill or perhaps even more appropriately not the interim but the permanent “Do as I Say but Don’t Do as I Do Bill”—that is a feature of Labour. That is exactly what this legislation is about when we read it in conjunction with the odious Electoral Finance Bill. Why do I say that it is a matter of “Do as I say don’t do as I do.”? Because it is a feature of this Labour Government. It lays down rules for other people and boy does it lay down rules! But when it comes to applying those rules to itself it evades them. 
I want to take members through a series of correspondence that highlights so very well that dreadful feature of this ghastly crowd. I will start with a file note of a conversation that the Chief Electoral Officer had with Mr Mike Smith the General Secretary of the Labour Party on 30 August 2005 about the brochure that had gone out entitled “ 
My Commitment to You” 
. The officer asked why it had not been properly authorised and Mr Smith said that it had been paid for by the Parliamentary Service and therefore did not require an authorisation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Madam Chairperson— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You don’t have to take it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I certainly will take the remainder of my time because I am very interested in clause 1 which as I said before the dinner break describes this legislation as ”Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill” and I said that we could describe it more accurately as either the “Authorisation of Next Year’s Pledge Card Bill” to be read in conjunction with the Electoral Finance Bill or more appropriately given the sort of Government we are dealing with the “Electoral Do as I Say but Don’t Do as I Do Bill”. 
I was seeking to prove my point about the title of the bill by referring to some correspondence entered into between the Chief Electoral Officer and the General Secretary of the Labour Party Mr Mike Smith in 2005. This correspondence clearly illustrates the point that it is “Do as I say but don’t do as I do.” because it dealt with the brochures that Mr Ryall held up entitled:  
“My Commitment to You” 
 and  
Working together sharing a vision 
 setting out Labour’s empty promises. I said that on 30 August 2005 the Chief Electoral Officer had communicated by telephone with Mr Smith and that on 2 September as he had foreshadowed he wrote to Mr Smith expressing the concerns of the Chief Electoral Office about the distribution to households throughout New Zealand of “ 
My Commitment to You” 
 which is in fact the pledge card. Mr Smith wrote back to David Henry—in a letter dated 6 September 2005—that the brochure and the card referred to had been produced by the office of the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party and it was parliamentary funding that was an issue here. 
On 12 September—just a few days before the general election was held on 17 September—the Chief Electoral Officer again wrote about “ 
My Commitment to You” 
 and the brochure entitled  
Working together sharing a vision: Labour’s policies for the future 
. Mr Smith responded in a letter dated 14 September 2005. At the end of the letter he told the Chief Electoral Officer that if he was really so concerned about it “then I would be happy to include the cost of the material in the return furnished by the New Zealand Labour Party.” and that is the point. He said that he would be prepared to include that in the cost of the material in the return to be furnished by the Labour Party. But on 5 October just a few days after the election he wrote back to Mr Henry and said: “I have now had the opportunity to reconsider the matter and I wish to advise that I withdraw my offer to have the amount expended on the material in question counted as an election expense since I do not believe that it is properly accountable as such.” In other words: “The election is over. All previous bets are off. We won. You lost. Eat that!”. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have had only two speakers on this part. It seems very unreasonable to be putting the vote at this point after two speakers to this part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The part that we are considering is clause 1 “Title”. There is plenty of time for debate on the other clauses which most people will be speaking on anyway. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry. The closure is not debated. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I have not even finished expanding on Mike Smith’s lying letter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well the member started off talking about the title. The point is there is plenty of opportunity to talk on those matters as we come to them but we were debating the title. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 Well that is interesting is it not? Here we are in this Committee debating a bill that is due to come into effect before Christmas before the end of the year and the Labour Government is shutting down the debate on it. We are not even allowed to debate it in this Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The decision about how long a debate goes on is the Chairperson’s decision. If the member wishes to criticise the Chairperson there is a proper process for doing so. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Madam Chairperson Government members opposite moved the closure motion and the debate on clause 1 was closed based on a vote. At no stage did I intend to criticise your decision. I was criticising the Government for moving a closure motion to shut down debate on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK; I accept that. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: This bill is due to come into force on 1 January next year. I want to make the point I made when this bill was introduced: the Government has had the whole year to negotiate this bill. As insidious as the National Party found the whole bill in essence we were prepared to talk about the processes around moving forward understanding that this validation bill would lapse at the end of this calendar year. However the Government has made no attempt to set up sensible reasonable cross-party negotiations. The first time the matter was raised with the National Party was in September. So the previous Minister of Justice was sitting on this piece of legislation knowing that it was going to expire at the end of the calendar year. It has been discussed at the Parliamentary Service Commission as expiring at the end of the year. Everyone has been aware that the legislation was due to expire but the Government and the previous Minister of Justice have done nothing—absolutely nothing—until it was so late in the piece the end of September when negotiations were started. 
Now we are faced with 3 or 4 weeks of sittings of the House in which to rush a bill like this through. We cannot even fully debate it in this Committee without having closure motions moved by the Government after only a couple of speakers. That is outrageous; that is an assault on democracy. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The speaker on her feet is asserting that she is not allowed to debate this bill although she is clearly on her feet debating the bill. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will have just one warning on this; when I am trying to rule on a point of order there will be silence. It is not a point of order. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: So we are now in the position of having to debate this bill under extreme provocation and extreme circumstances because it is time limited. There is no opportunity for us to discuss alternatives to this insidious bill. 
We are told that if this bill does not commence on 1 January next year we will have no rules under which to operate. That is absolutely absurd. This Parliament had perfectly good rules. We do not need this bill. We could quite easily see this legislation lapse and go back to the old rules that were in force prior to this backward retrospective validating legislation and if everyone abided by those rules there would be no problems. We have worked hard this year to clarify the rules so that everyone understood them. We could start on 1 January when this new legislation is due to come into effect and as long as everyone abided by the rules there would be no prosecutions or problems. We could all carry on under the rules that Parliament lived under in reasonable circumstances for a number of elections. 
We are now faced with this legislation that will legitimise and legalise behaviour that was against the existing rules. There is no need for this legislation to come into effect from 1 January next year and to run for another 18 months. The existing rules were perfectly adequate. If people had abided by those rules then the Auditor-General would not have found in the way he did and we would not be in the situation we are in today whereby the Labour Party is trying to rort the rules. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I do not know whether members have read the latest  
Listener 
 editorial but there are four words in that editorial that sum up this bill wonderfully. Those four words are “the public deserve better”. It is an absolute disgrace to the democracy of our country that we have a law that has been introduced under urgency that follows another law that was introduced under urgency— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s not under urgency. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: We all know that the previous bill was supplied to the Opposition 2 hours before it was supposed to be debated in the House. We now have the same tricks again and the public deserve better. The public deserve to have some confidence in the democracy of our country and in our Parliament. The public deserve better. 
All that can be said about this law is that it is one law for MPs. This bill should not have a commencement date at all. It should not be necessary to introduce this bill. If this Government had done what it said it would do last time this bill would have quietly lapsed. As the Minister of Finance said last time: “There is a sunset date. It will expire at the end of next year. That has been done because we had to respond to the need for a broader review of the rules.” We have not had a broader review of the rules and this is not it. 
The reason we are back in this Chamber debating this invidious legislation is that the Government did not do what it said it had to do. We all know and we should all appreciate the absolute importance of electoral law in our country and the importance of electoral law having at least some form of consensus in the House if it is to be at all enduring. This bill does not have consensus. It is an absolute disgrace. We would not need a commencement date for yet another roll-over piece of legislation if the Minister had actually done something about it before now—if he had made an effort to sit down with the other parties to work through the issues and produce a generally consensual and therefore enduring electoral law. He has failed. 
We would not need a commencement date if for example such rules that needed clarification were so clarified in the other invidious piece of legislation joined at the hip to this one—namely the Electoral Finance Bill. One cannot treat one bill without the other. But here we are today with yet another commencement date for yet another invidious bill that is a disgrace because Labour was caught cheating. The Labour Government was caught cheating. It knew the rules it broke the rules and then it validated its own illegal actions. Yet here we are today with some interim measures some continuation of definitions and some new commencement date for substantially the same definition knowing that in the words of the Minister of Finance: “The House will still have to come back to permanent long-term rules in 2009.” 
We do not need a commencement date for a disgraceful bill that provides with its twin the Electoral Finance Bill that there will now be one rule for politicians and one rule for everyone else. We do not need a commencement date for a shameful piece of legislation that says that politicians will be able to do almost anything when it comes to political advertising but that the public will be able to do almost nothing. It says that we will make it harder for ordinary private citizens to have freedom of expression which restricts public advocacy and is a dramatic assault on human rights. But it states that we will relax the rules for incumbent members of Parliament especially Government ones and that is shameful. 
We do not need a commencement date for an invidious piece of legislation because the Labour Party issued a pledge card it should not have issued and because of the Labour Party’s utter utter disregard for electoral law and for ordinary normal democratic principles. The  
Listener 
 editorial is quite intriguing. It states that MPs will be covered by the “One Law for MPs Bill” which allows them to campaign next year right up to the day before the election using the generous taxpayer-funded allowances given to each party represented in Parliament and that what is more this spending will not be counted as part of each MP’s individual spending cap. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Kate Wilkinson has been here only a relatively short time and I have to say that I have a degree of respect for her because she is a frank-talking lawyer—an industrial lawyer I think. But my goodness! I have to say that she read that speech beautifully but I do not know who the hell wrote it because it is wrong—absolutely totally wrong. 
We learnt today at the Parliamentary Service Commission from Rodney Hide that the National Party approached him—a chap called— 
Anne Tolley 
: He lied. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is the National whip going to deny this? 
Anne Tolley 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: This is what Rodney Hide told the Parliamentary Service Commission. He said that Wayne Eagleson—who the hell is Wayne Eagleson—on behalf of the National Party came to Rodney Hide and said “The best way to handle this issue is to roll it over.” 
Anne Tolley 
: He didn’t say that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes he did. 
Anne Tolley 
: He did not. 
PETER BROWN 
: He did and I took particular note. 
Anne Tolley 
: I know you did. 
PETER BROWN 
: Did the member see me writing it down? 
Anne Tolley 
: Yes I did. 
PETER BROWN 
: Did she? 
Anne Tolley 
: Yes I did. 
PETER BROWN 
: No the note was in my brain. National members make one noise here in this Chamber to the public and another noise behind the scenes. They know we have to have rules and we have to have legislation to govern the activities of MPs. Kate Wilkinson knows this because I have worked with her on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know that she is a sound-thinking person. I do not agree with her politics but I know she is a sound-thinking person. She knows that we have to have rules governing what MPs can or cannot do when it comes to an election. That is what— 
Bob Clarkson 
: You didn’t do that at the last election. 
PETER BROWN 
: Goodness me Bob Clarkson is actually speaking in this Chamber. He is not asleep in the lobby. He is actually here speaking. Goodness me! 
Barbara Stewart 
: He hasn’t taken a call though. 
PETER BROWN 
: He has not taken call—will the member over there take a call? Will Mr Clarkson take the next call? I would welcome him taking the call. Goodness me! 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will New Zealand First pay the money back to the Western Bay Finance depositors? 
PETER BROWN 
: Will I pay the money back? Mr Clarkson will find out in due course what we are going to do with the money but I can tell the member that New Zealand First stuck to the rules and we will stick to these rules. We did not employ international consultants to work out what we should do in the campaign because we thought it was going to be a July election as those guys did and then use taxpayers’ money to produce the hoardings before the event. We did not do that. We stuck to the rules and we had this brochure checked off by Parliamentary Service. Parliamentary Service will tell the members that. We also had it checked off by the Electoral Commission and the commission will tell the members that. 
This commencement date is the right date. We have got to roll over this bill it is absolutely essential we roll over this bill. Members can see the discourse that National is in. The National members do not even agree with one another so it is essential we roll over this bill and to a time that takes it beyond the next election to take the heat out of the situation. 
This bill has three pages. It is very straightforward it simply says what an MP can or cannot do in terms of doing his or her job as an MP. One would expect the criteria governing what an MP can or cannot do to be different from those of a candidate. It is ridiculous of Kate Wilkinson to put candidates and MPs in the same barrow. It is absolutely ridiculous. She knows it now that she is an MP or she will find out if she does not already know. I know she knows it. It is a different kettle of fish being here representing people from being a candidate trying to be a person here representing people. MPs have got to be allowed to do their job and do their job effectively. 
Colin King 
: What are you talking about? 
PETER BROWN 
: Those guys over there clearly do not know what an MP’s job is. It is not to sit here make noise and oppose everything that comes up under the sun. Members are here to make constructive criticism. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 The designers of this bill the people who want it rolled over should reflect on the opportunities it offers because of the structure of the finances it covers and the manner in which those finances are issued dispensed and ultimately accounted for because I foresee a problem. Just as I hear Mr Brown occasionally talking about his marine experience I have had a bit of experience in marketing sales and negotiation and I sense there is a real problem with this particular bill. I would honestly encourage those who are saying “Yes we’ve got to have it. Yes it’s necessary.” to think about what it might cause because I do not think this legislation has been thought through at all so I am very very pleased to be speaking against it. 
Prior to preparing my notes to speak on this bill I carefully read the speeches that were given at the time of the first reading. I have heard people speaking about it during question time and I am definitely left thinking that if this were a sales opportunity someone is trying to sell me a pup with this bill. In many ways it is a classic example of what happens when a Government is as blindly regulation-driven as this one. One has only to look at the way the bill is being introduced and at the aspects we are discussing at the moment. Every day one hears of yet another instance of rigorous regulation being imposed on the lives of Kiwis. People are actually getting sick of it but Labour sycophants are loving it. 
The self-perpetuating cycle of regulation goes something like this. Ministers will be judged to be efficient by their commitment to regulatory political correctness. One has only to analyse and assess the recent promotions in the soft-shoe shuffle to see this being borne out. The cycle continues—as each clings to regulation for self-justification and as shortcomings become evident then the solution is more regulation. Then if one has no fresh regulation one rolls it over—rolls over what one had before. That is why we are going to see a perpetuation of what occurred before but this time it will be legal. 
In respect of this particular bill there are differences. We are not just rolling over as I have been told the same legislation that we had before because the situation has changed. There is a scissor action occurring interacting between this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. On the one hand in the appropriation legislation parliamentary funding can be spent on soft election advertising then the other scissor blade comes in with the proposed Electoral Finance Bill and MPs’ spending on soft election advertising does not count towards a party’s or a candidate’s election spending cap. The scissor action effectively cuts a line between existing members and new candidates especially—and I refer to the previous speaker—new candidates with names that are difficult to pronounce. If it is being suggested that I will find it a little harder to get my name known as a list MP than I would as a candidate I have news for that member. 
Other members have spoken at length on the inequity that this bill will create. But if I may I would like to sound a different note of caution. The note of caution is expressed towards those who have been so enthusiastic for it. If the bill goes forward as it is it will not be long before it has to be changed again because I suggest it is being used for a purpose it is not designed for for a situation that no longer is there and it will create opportunities to bring about the very things it is supposed to prevent. We heard earlier from my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall who illustrated some of the things we have seen in the past—the bright red print process is what we call it. It produces information such as that written here: “You are better off with Labour.” 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Propaganda! Pure propaganda! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is pure propaganda but it will be called “information”. In a normal election year as one progresses towards election time and as the campaigns begin— 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 There are a small number of amendments in my name that I have been moved to put forward because I am concerned that the Government was taking closure motions on this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill after only two speeches from the Opposition. I tell the Government members that if they want to be voting on every date in 2008 and 2009 then Ms Moroney should go ahead and cut this debate short. She will prove what a great junior Labour whip she is when she has the Committee voting for 2½ hours on amendments. 
If this Opposition does not get the chance to have a say that is exactly what this Committee will be doing because we will not allow the rights of the minority in this Committee to be stampeded across by a party that in this bill will favour the red printing press such as we have never seen before. The amendments that I have for this Committee—[ 
Interruption 
] She is such a great junior Labour whip that it will be really well received in the Beehive when it is found out that because of her move to concertina two Opposition speakers on the bill we will all be a voting on amendments. 
I put forward these amendments because I do not think this bill should come into effect this year. I do not think it should come into effect until some time later so I have put forward amendments that will have this bill coming in at a later date because it will give a future Parliament the opportunity to deal with this sort of law in the way that it should. 
Like the Electoral Finance Bill these pieces of legislation should be dealt with on a multiparty basis of consensus across the House. We simply cannot have the law that applies to parliamentary spending and the election changing every election depending on who the winner is. That is the thing that has forced this House for generations to come together on rules that all the parties—certainly the main parties—can agree on. Parties realise that what goes around comes around and that what is done by the Government to the Opposition invites that Opposition when it becomes the Government to do to the Opposition what it is doing to the Opposition now. That is the reason why we have always had an approach of bipartisan agreement under the old system and multiparty agreement under the new system to the rules of election spending and the rules of election finance. 
That is why we have moved amendments to get this bill debated in a better culture where there can be multiparty agreement and all the parties come together. It is not good for democracy that the rules around parliamentary spending and elections change depending on who the victor in the election is. That is what happens in South America. That is what happens behind the Iron Curtain. That is what happens in corrupt banana republics. Whoever the winner is they change the electoral law to suit them and that is what is being proposed here. 
At the last election under the old rules it was illegal to spend money on materials like those I am holding—which are no doubt designed to promote as they do the Labour Party—in the period of the election and they had to be counted as election spending if they were produced. Under what is being proposed in this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill these brochures promoting the Labour Party and its candidates can go out in the days before the election and they will not be counted as election spending. 
This bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill provides immunity from coverage for parties and members of Parliament because of their work as members of Parliament. At the last election these materials I am holding and the credit card were found to be election expenses and costly and they had to be declared. But what has happened? This bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill says that all this bright red election material paid for by the taxpayers will become perfectly legitimate in the election campaign period. If these things go out now and they are within the rules they are not counted as election activity. They are counted as informational. 
Peter Brown 
: What do they say? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They say that Helen Clark is doing a great job and to vote for her. That is what they try to say. They say they are delivering more for families. 
Hon Bill English 
: What do they say about Trevor Mallard? More punch for your dollar. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. They say: “More punch for your dollar.” That is what he is saying in this material. This material going out now is not an election expense but it is during the election period. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the commencement clause in what is a very important bill. I point out to the member who has just resumed his seat that when he was in Government and was making the rules he felt that it was perfectly fine to pass the Electoral Act of 1993 that governed how parliamentarians can spend their money as MPs to communicate with their constituents. When he was in Government he thought it was fine to be able to do the kinds of things that we have all been talking about doing here tonight; he thought that was fine. He did not have a problem. In fact he was a Cabinet Minister in the National Government that passed the very laws we are affirming here today. 
I also want to point out that what we are doing here today is exactly what the National Party wanted to do in the cross-party talks that occurred. It is exactly what National members wanted to happen until they saw a cynical and dishonest political advantage in trying to pretend that this was not the position they had taken the whole time. I have been sitting here listening to this debate. I say to the National members that they are not doing themselves any favours over this. It was fine for Bill English and Tony Ryall to stand up in this House and pass an electoral Act that allowed exactly what we are doing today and exactly what the members of this Parliament thought was the law until the Auditor-General’s report. Many of us disagreed with that report but we accepted it and we paid the money back. As we know just like that forward pass in a certain rugby game between the All Blacks and the French one does not always agree with the referee but one accepts the decision and moves on. 
We are debating a commencement date for something that simply continues what we have always understood to be the case since National passed the law in 1993. Those members stand up now and try to take the high ground as they always do from a base completely lacking in any moral conviction. They use much of their funding to close electorate offices so they can spend more money on pamphlets about themselves. I suspect that next year— 
Anne Tolley 
: Ha ha! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Anne Tolley can laugh. There were four electorate offices in the East Coast electorate under Labour; there are now two under National. But they are so cynical that I suggest we may see some opening next year in the East Coast electorate. Maybe we will see that as the National Party members decide they will try to take the moral high ground and say they are not spending any more money on promoting themselves but are instead opening electorate offices. I say that the public of New Zealand are far more savvy than that. They can see through it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Look at your brochures. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Mr Ryall that he was quite happy to put out pamphlets when he was in Government—he was quite happy to put them out before the last election—and I just say that people in glass houses should not throw stones. 
I will be watching with interest the next election campaign. That party over there has $7 million to spend. For every single pamphlet that goes out with the parliamentary crest on we will be telling the people of New Zealand: “This is the National Party that stood up and said this money should not be spent.” We will tell the public that it is the same National Party that stood up and accused other parties in this House of being corrupt for doing exactly what we have always understood the law to be and it is exactly what they have always understood the law to be and they are still happy to spend that money. There is a word for that and we are not allowed to use it in this House but the people of New Zealand know it. Mr Ryall is telling them all to be quiet now and to hush down because he knows they are on shaky ground. 
For every pamphlet that goes out next year with the parliamentary crest on it we will be saying to the National Party members: “Where are your standards now? Where are your high morals?”. We will remind them that they stood up in the House and called other parties corrupt for using parliamentary spending in the way we had always assumed we were allowed to. We are simply carrying this over until we can get some kind of cross-party agreement on how the rules should be set after the Auditor-General’s report. The National Party backed out of those talks when Labour said it would do exactly what National was asking for. When we said we would extend the provisions and do exactly what National had been asking for National backed out and said it would play political games on this issue. I say that that is not good enough. 
I say to the National members that they can bleat on all they want but we will be watching during the next election campaign. We will be watching that party which passed the very law we are now affirming in this House for every dollar of taxpayers’ funding that its members spend after they stood up in this House and said they believed this measure to be corrupt. So I say good luck to the National members in the next campaign because they will need it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 My colleague tells me that Labour is 23 percent behind in the East Coast electorate. I would advise the Labour candidate to stay away from that electorate because a Labour Party candidate wandering around the East Coast having to answer questions about the use of taxpayers’ money in the last election will be getting no votes whatsoever. 
We need to remind the Committee of just why we are here. This bill does not need a commencement date because Parliament does not need this legislation. The only reason it is here is that Labour broke the rules in the 2005 election after it had been told by the Auditor-General what the rules were. 
Before the election the Auditor-General said: “Remember there is a 3-month period and in that period of time the rules are tight and you should be very careful.” During the 3-month period after the Auditor-General had told the Labour Party—and everybody—to be careful Labour was told the same thing by the Chief Electoral Officer during the election period. In fact it was only about a month out from the election. The Labour Party wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer and said: “Yes the pledge card is electioneering.” Labour members agreed and they said they would count it in their expenses. That was not the National Party rabble opposition and it was not the nasty smearing Auditor-General; it was the secretary of the Labour Party. That is who it was. I do not think the Labour MPs knew that. Labour put down on paper that yes it accepted that the pledge card was electioneering. By definition that means that Labour accepted that it broke the rules. The public knows Labour broke the rules because it paid back the money. Have members ever seen Helen Clark admit she is wrong about anything? No except for the pledge card when Labour paid back the money. 
But of course as the member said Labour still does not accept that it can do anything wrong. Once Labour had paid back the money it then wanted to cover it up by saying that everyone broke the rules and that the Auditor-General is so silly that it has to pass legislation to validate MPs paying for the lighting in their office and putting ads in the paper for constituent clinics. That is why Labour passed this law. It said that if it got caught out the Auditor-General must be stupid and the rules must be wrong so we have to validate everything that MPs have ever done. That is the sort of standard of morality that Labour has set. Labour members believe they are the only people who can validate everything that MPs have ever done. 
That is the legislation that expires on 30 December which is why this bill is here with a 1 January commencement date. It should not have a commencement date. The bill is here only because Dr Cullen was piqued that he got caught out. He was angry and frustrated so he made Parliament pass a law to prove that Labour was right. That is what this bill is all about—to try to prove that Labour was right. 
We do not need the bill. As the previous speaker said the rules have not changed since before 1993—in fact since about 1989. The rules are the same. The only thing that ever happened was that Labour broke them. Egregiously and deliberately Labour exceeded the expenditure limit for the election by $600000 or $700000. It has never been done before. The way to make sure that rules count is to enforce them. Unfortunately after the last election the rules were not enforced when they should have been enforced—on everyone. Other parties broke the rules to a minor extent. The rules should have been enforced. That is what this bill is here for. 
I invite the member for the East Coast to wander round the countryside looking for voters for Labour and to tell them that Labour is passing legislation that means that MPs can spend what they like right up to election day but the candidate who is running against her cannot. 
The member for the Tainui Maori seat is over there. The Maori Party candidate standing against her will be limited to $20000 for election year but Nanaia Mahuta will have the ability to spend about $80000—all of it public money. The Maori Party candidate will have to go and raise the $20000 with cake stalls and raffle tickets. Nanaia Mahuta will get $80000 handed to her. That is Labour’s definition of a fair go. In fact Labour thinks that money given to someone is better if it is public money. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the commencement date of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill which is 1 January 2008. Let the Government on the other side of the Chamber understand one thing about that date and about this commencement clause: the people of New Zealand will respect the effort being put up by this side of the Chamber to expose that date and this legislation for exactly what it is. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is it? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is a disgrace. It is a further insidious socialist attack on the way of democracy of this country. That is what it is. The commencement date in this bill is necessary only because that Government over there—that party over there—acted against the rules that existed at the time. The Labour members will not accept that. They will not front up to that. They would rather play around with our system of democracy. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: In denial. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: They are in total denial. 
On the commencement date of this bill New Zealand will not be the New Zealand of the strong bipartisan sense of democratic tradition that has served this country so well for so long. On that day—the first day of the new year and the commencement date of this bill—newspapers around the country will be able to repeat the headline of this Monday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Democracy under threat” because that is what the commencement date of this legislation will mean to New Zealanders. 
New Zealanders are following this debate very very closely. They understand that 1 January 2008 is actually not very far away and they ask: “Why the rush?”. Why is the Parliament of New Zealand with all the issues that New Zealand is facing spending tonight debating the commencement date of this legislation which is necessary only because the Government broke the rules? That is why this commencement date is necessary and I suggest that New Zealand First members really think very very carefully about their position. 
The speech on the commencement date made by Peter Brown was not a good speech. Goodness knows what he was on about. He had better go away over Christmas and think about 1 January the commencement date and think about what ordinary New Zealanders are saying about this bill. He should have no doubt at all that ordinary New Zealanders will make their view very very clear. Throughout New Zealand there is a very strong sense of unease at the action that this Government and its coalition supporters are taking. 
On 1 January 2008 the commencement date of this bill New Zealanders will realise just what sort of Government they have. New Zealanders will think about the things that have been said in this Chamber during the debate on the commencement date and they will reflect on the comments of the Hon Tony Ryall the Hon Bill English my fine colleague Kate Wilkinson Chris Auchinvole and Christopher Finlayson. They will reflect and they will be grateful and respectful because at least there was one party in this House that stood up in the defence of New Zealand’s democratic way of life. 
We the members of this House are elected to represent the people in our constituencies and in the country. They expect this party on this side of the House to speak out against this legislation against the commencement date in it and against the fact that if it is passed on 1 January 2008—it is not long away—democracy will not be the same. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am speaking on clause 2 which as we know is the commencement clause. Clause 2 of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill as drafted states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
As some speakers have been suggesting given that the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006 expires on 31 December 2007 it would make sense that if this vile legislation is to go through the commencement date should be 1 January 2008. Putting aside the merits of the legislation for the moment and focusing—as indeed we must—on the commencement clause we see that there is a certain symmetry in having a commencement date of 1 January 2008. I imagine that if the Electoral Finance Bill is enacted—against the interests and concerns of the National Party—the commencement date for the Electoral Finance Bill could also be 1 January 2008. 
That is appropriate because we would then have on 1 January 2008 the enactment of this shabby legislation the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill—which would facilitate Labour’s next pledge card and atrocious advertising we had in 2005—and at the same time we would have the commencement of the Electoral Finance Act which of course is designed to shut down political discourse throughout election year. So there is symmetry it seems to me in having a commencement date of 1 January 2008. 
Had it not been for the formula in clause 2—namely that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent—another appropriate commencement date could have been today because with the release of the report from the State Services Commission today we have seen the undermining of the political neutrality of the Civil Service as evidenced by that very sad report. So we have a Government that is dedicated to upholding democratic ideals introducing legislation to commence on 1 January that provides the basis for the misuse of parliamentary funds. On the same day we have the Electoral Finance Act which is designed to shut down political discourse throughout the country for one-third of the election cycle and we have an undermining of the political neutrality of the Civil Service. When we put those three elements together— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What do you get? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —we see two very concerning matters I say to Mr Auchinvole. 
First we see the overstepping of vital informal limits that were hitherto central to political contests. It was always understood that there were certain lines beyond which one did not go and Labour does not accept that any more. Secondly it represents a ruthless and consistent use of the power of the State to advance the interests of one party—the Labour Party—at the expense of democratic society. 
Well I say to this revolting Labour Government that it can have whatever commencement date it wants. It may by chance win a vote in the Committee tonight but the National Party will not let it get away with it. This Government will be held to account. There will be an accounting because this kind of legislation which seeks to ride roughshod over fundamental democratic principles is immoral and will be repealed just as our leader has said. Whatever commencement date this Government applies to the electoral finance legislation that too will be repealed because there are limits. There are informal limits. In a society like ours if one does not respect the informal rules if the parties do not act according to a certain set of standards then one leads one’s country by the shorter route to chaos. 
We see the standards of the Labour Government in its seeking to have legislation to commence as clause 2 provides on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. We see the standards of this Labour Government evidenced in the correspondence between the general secretary of the Labour Party and the Chief Electoral Officer in September and October last year—on the one hand expressing concern and on the other hand withdrawing it. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the phrase “31 December 2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are 53 other amendments all to do with the commencement date. They have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the decision of the Committee on the previous amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 Interim meaning of “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Well it was good that the Minister of Finance was forced to realise that this Parliament is not happy with the way the Government is pushing through this bill. The Opposition wants to make it absolutely clear to the people of New Zealand that this legislation is odious it is an annihilation of the multiparty approach to electoral law that we have seen in this country for many years and it will be bad for New Zealand. Together with the Electoral Finance Bill this clause 3 is the active clause that will legalise the use of the Labour Party pledge card which will be paid for by taxpayers’ money in the next election campaign. 
If people will recall the Auditor-General found that the Labour Party had stolen $800000 of taxpayers’ money and had illegally spent it on a pledge card that the party did not declare an election expense as it should have done. In the weeks prior to the 2005 general election the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry wrote to the Labour Party upon the complaint of a number of people some of whom are known to members of Parliament to tell it that this Labour Party pledge card—[ 
Interruption 
] On what date? 
Anne Tolley 
: 2 September. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: On 2 September David Henry the Chief Electoral Officer wrote to the Labour Party to make it absolutely clear that the Labour Party pledge card regardless of whether it was paid for by taxpayers or by the Labour Party itself would have to be declared an election expense. Within days the general secretary of the Labour Party replied to say yes the party would be incorporating it in its election expenses. But come the election that was found to be a complete lie. The Labour Party did not declare the pledge card in its election expenses for this very reason: the cost put the Labour Party $800000 over the limit it was allowed to spend in the run-up to the last election. Labour spent that sum using taxpayers’ money and Labour was forced to pay it back by the people of New Zealand and by the National Party in Opposition. 
What this bill does is this. Right now the red printing rollers are running at the Labour Party headquarters producing material like these pamphlets I am holding which are being stuck into every letterbox in New Zealand. Right now outside an election period it is perfectly legitimate for the Labour Party to spend money on this material provided the party does not ask people specifically to vote for it. But under the old rules that existed before this law was changed—which Labour has removed but now wants to ingrain opposition on and ignore the law—this material sent out in the 3 months before the election would have counted as an election expense. Every one of these pieces of paper with bright red Labour livery Labour logo and Labour slogan would have counted as an election expense under the old rules if they had been put out in the 3-month pre-election period. That is what the Auditor-General said and that is what Parliament understood the rules to be. 
What will happen now is that all of this material will be able to be sent out even in the week before the election and there is an immunity provision in this bill and in the Electoral Finance Bill that says that because the material is being sent out by members of Parliament it will not count as an election expense. Why is that unfair? It is because that privilege will not apply to any person other than a member of Parliament. So those people who are standing for New Zealand First for the Greens and in other electorates are faced with the restriction that applies to everybody else except members of Parliament. That is wrong—that is wrong. Members of Parliament should not be privileging themselves from the requirements of the electoral law by as in this bill legitimising the use of public money for this sort of purpose in the election period. 
It would be simply outrageous to think that in the week before the election the Labour Party could put out brochures saying: “Healthy wealthy wise” “What we are doing for KiwiSaver” or “What we are doing for free education” and try to convince the public that that is not electioneering. It cannot put out that material in the week of the election and say that it is not electioneering; even Sue Moroney would not fall for that. If Labour puts out this material right now that is fine—that is within the rules and that is informing the public. But if Labour puts it out in the week before an election then that is not right. It is not right; it is taxpayers’ money being abused. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I want to continue on from my colleague Tony Ryall because there is a more insidious thing about this bill that has not actually come out. All this material with red on it which I am holding here will be perfectly legal next year under this bill which sets up different rules for parliamentarians. If this information were put out by the Labour Party without the parliamentary crest it would be deemed to be electioneering under the Electoral Finance Bill and therefore it would not be allowed. That is what is so bad about this legislation in combination with the Electoral Finance Bill that is in the Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment. It sets up one regime for parliamentarians and this is an example of it. It will be no problem at all for parliamentarians to put out this sort of stuff next year with a parliamentary logo on it because it is not explicitly seeking a vote some money or some membership. That is what is in the bill that is in front of us tonight. 
The definition of electioneering in the bill is so tight that this material is OK but if New Zealand First or if the “Joe Brown Party” which is not in Parliament wanted to put out the same sort of material under their parties’ colours that would be called electioneering. Those parties would be told how much money they could spend or could not spend and they would be told when they could advertise. That is not democracy. That is a case of protecting the patches of current political parties and current MPs and that is despicable. I cannot believe that a principled party like New Zealand First is supporting this rubbish. It is absolutely undemocratic. I cannot believe that a man of the integrity of Peter Brown is sitting in the Chamber supporting this legislation right through its stages in the House. 
We have had some sophistry in this debate about the fact that this is one little bill that must be considered in isolation. That is wrong. We cannot consider this bill on its own. We have to look at it in concert with what is happening with the Electoral Finance Bill which is still in the select committee. If members look at that Electoral Finance Bill as it was introduced into this House they will see that it brings down Draconian curbs on the definition of electioneering that prescribes what everyone else can talk about. 
Let us look at the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Clause 3(2) states that electioneering means “any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote for a particular political party or political parties; or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party or political parties; or (d) solicits subscriptions …”. If members go to the Electoral Finance Bill as introduced into the House they will see that the definition of an election advertisement is quite different. A person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for one or more specified parties for one or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates. That person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies—blah-blah-blah. The third provision catches everything—any group from Greenpeace to a mothers federation that is taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated. 
That is an assault on democracy. I cannot believe that Peter Brown is supporting that and I cannot believe that his colleague Doug Woolerton is sitting in the select committee voting for the Government to bring in legislation that on the one hand says that an MP can spend what he or she likes and can produce all this sort of stuff— 
Peter Brown 
: It doesn’t say that. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It does say that. I say to Mr Brown that if he does not understand that then I suggest he go and read the bill carefully because that is what it says. It says those actions are OK for MPs but not for anyone else. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Never before in the history of New Zealand have we seen such an undermining of our democracy as we have under the current regime. This is absolutely tragic for New Zealand—but guess what? Have I got news for members on the other side of the Chamber! The New Zealand public really do know about it. Here we have on the front of the  
Challenge Weekly 
: “The Electoral Finance Bill—no way”. If they understood the implication of this particular bill and what it meant in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill they would be saying “no way” to that too. Here we have John Boscawen who has started a campaign and is working with Grey Power and the Sensible Sentencing Trust to take legal proceedings against the Attorney-General and the High Court has set down an urgent hearing on 27 November for a judicial review. 
Hon Member 
: That’s about the next bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It does not matter which bill it is for whether it is the Electoral Finance Bill or whether it is for this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill it is all part of the same package; it just constantly undermines democracy. Do not forget what Harry Truman said: “Once a Government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition it has only one way to go and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” I have to tell members that this Government is doing exactly that. It is shutting down opposition in any which way it can. 
My excellent colleague Anne Tolley has quite clearly spelt out what that means in terms of this bill that we are discussing here tonight and its relationship with the Electoral Finance Bill. If members look at the part we are talking about here in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill the key point—which was made by Anne Tolley and by Tony Ryall—is that this is about keeping the jobs going for those MPs who have the privilege of being in Parliament right now. 
It makes it very difficult for people outside of Parliament to do anything about becoming representatives of the people. It stops them from being able to fully participate on an even playing field alongside those people who already have the privilege of being in Parliament. Clearly a number of people from the Government benches just do not understand that distinction. They clearly do not understand some of the basic principles of democracy and that is what is wrong with this current Government. That is why we have this atrocious bill that we are talking about here tonight. That is why we had the horrified questions raised about the bill from some other parties in this Parliament—namely New Zealand First whose members clearly had a bit of trouble understanding the bill. But obviously some members from the Government benches do not want people to be able to challenge them in their seats. They like having that ultimate authority. They do not want to be challenged by anybody outside of Parliament. They want to keep their cushy numbers and their MPs’ salaries and they are actually passing legislation so that that happens and so they can put out all sorts of advertising blurbs. 
I just wonder whether these advertisements from Labour’s last election campaign would actually get off the blocks and get approval. What do they say—apart from talking about Labour’s tax package? Hello! I wonder what Cullen thinks about that. I wonder how much of National’s policy has been incorporated into this stuff under the guise of Labour policy. These advertisements actually say that “You are better off with Labour.” Well I tell the Committee that there will not be many people who think that when they are listening to the debate on both this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill because the public understands the meaning of democracy. They also know the difference between flimflam and reality. They understand the difference between spin and what is real. 
I have to tell the Committee that the airbrushing on this pamphlet just passes credibility. I mean the teeth being as even as that? It is ridiculous. We all know what Helen Clark’s teeth look like and whether they have been sharpened at the edges is a moot point. It is clear that some questions will be raised about this advertisement because I do not know whether they can get away with saying “You are better off with Labour.” However Labour is clearly making the most of it. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 If that member Sandra Goudie had half the courage of the convictions that she has attempted to demonstrate tonight she would be proposing to the leadership of her party that John Key take down his parliamentary-funded website which says that people should vote National. I would recommend that he take it down anyway just because it is an obscene suggestion to make to a New Zealander. That website is funded by Parliament. The member should suggest to all of her colleagues who have put out electioneering material with the parliamentary crest on it suggesting that people vote for National that they should not just withdraw from the debate but have the honesty to pay back that money as well. But she will not. 
Bill English issued a pledge card to the public of New Zealand under the exact same rules as we did and funded from the exact same source. The member should say to Bill English—“Mr 23 Percent” and going down the gurgler as he was then—that he should pay back that money. But instead she has the audacity to come into this Chamber to make accusations against Labour. We did exactly the same as National did. National did it in the first part of the year because its members thought that the election would be in July. But they got it wrong; it was in September. We know that in the 2002 election in the 1999 election in the 1996 election in the 1993 election and in the 1990 election National did exactly the same under the same rules with the same money and it never paid back a cent. 
As my colleague Moana Mackey said there is a word for saying one thing in this House and doing another thing outside in public. Tragically for some bizarre reason we are not allowed to use that term in Parliament to demonstrate that when people say one thing in here and do another thing outside it is immoral. That is the immorality of the National Party and that is the immorality that that member is now standing in this Committee and accusing others of demonstrating. 
I ask members to look at John Key’s website. It says “Vote National” and it is funded by Parliamentary Service. I ask members to look at his postcards which have the parliamentary crest on them and say “Vote National” under the exact same rules. I ask members to look at his letter to community organisations inviting them to come to a meeting. Tragically nobody turned up. Oh that is not true—two people turned up and they were both National Party members. Further if the member had any courage or any convictions she would say to her leader that National must not take one cent of the $7 million of parliamentary funding that it is given because to use it to communicate with members of the public is immoral corrupt and something that must not happen. 
National members want one rule for the National Party and another rule for any other parties. Frankly this is nonsense. We all know that a genuine attempt was made by all parties to get agreement on this issue. Gerry Brownlee who interestingly enough has not been allowed to take a call in the debate tonight—extraordinary given that he is National’s shadow Leader of the House—led the negotiations to get cross-party agreement on this issue. He said in the House that National agreed with these rules being rolled over it just did not agree with the date. Then National changed its mind but no other party did. Members of the public understand that. National pulled out of genuine attempts to get cross-party agreement. 
If we did as National members say and we pulled the rules we would end up with exactly the same chaos as we had previously. Everybody agreed to these rules. That is why Bill English put out his Parliamentary Service - funded pledge card in 2002. It did not do him any good. But under that party’s so-called morals he should still pay back that money—same pledge card same rules same funding. Why has the National Party not paid back the money that it owes? It owes it to the public of New Zealand and it continues to use it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The Minister Ruth Dyson raised an interesting question. She said that surely we must be able to communicate with our constituents. The National Party does not disagree with that proposition. But the real issue and what really gets under the skin of the National Party is the timing of that communication. If one communicates in the election period then one is breaching the rules that were so very clear for members of Parliament up to the last general election. With that in mind I want to focus on clause 3(2) and the very interesting word that gets the Labour Party off the hook—“explicitly”. Clause 3(2) states that electioneering is “any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote for a particular political party”. 
Labour knew that. Under the old rules which all members of Parliament understood very well and more important given the statements I made in an earlier debate understood the spirit of them very well Labour designed brochures to go out to the people that did not explicitly seek votes for a particular person or a particular party but made it clear that they were seeking the support of the people of New Zealand. 
The first brochure of course is the one that Mr Ryall mentioned entitled  
Working together sharing a vision 
 with the Prime Minister’s photo on the front— 
Anne Tolley 
: Whose photo? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
:—the Prime Minister’s I think—and with seven commitments which were supposedly introduced by the Government between 1999 and 2005. Those commitments included and I think the Maori Party members may be interested in this fair—not just—and final settlements. Labour was going to complete all settlements by 2020. Of course if Dr Cullen is there we can forget about that. 
So what we have is a number of commitments that Labour says it had entered into in the course of its first two terms of office. Any fair-minded person looking at that document in the election period would say that it was nothing other than seeking support for the election of the Labour Party for a third term. Then we had the much discussed “ 
My Commitment to You” 
 document containing the pledge card and “Forward together”—it sounds like a Stalinist march—that it was going to do certain things in its third term and the people will do them or else Labour will have them shot. By the time of Labour’s fourth term if it gets one I am sure it is going to be like that. Labour set out what the pledge card is going to contain. 
Again I come back to those words in clause 3(2). Could any honest decent politician or any political party in this House have any doubt whatsoever that in the election period it is seeking support for the election of a particular person or people or seeking support for a particular party? So that is why Labour inserted that word “explicitly”. I have an amendment that will deal with that because I think as I said in an earlier debating speech the real issue is whether it is directly or indirectly. If we apply that test then beyond a shadow of a doubt that kind of correspondence with electors is not on. 
The person who understood all this was Mr Michael Smith who wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer on 14 September 2005 and said at paragraph 17: “I am aware that there are two streams of communication: MPs with their constituents and the New Zealand Labour Party soliciting votes. They cannot be conflated. Both have their own legal rules.” But what we have here is a transparent and obvious attempt to get around those rules so that they can in effect solicit votes using parliamentary funding. I say to Mr Brown and to the other members of the House from the smaller parties that this is an issue that needs to be confronted. I ask them to focus on the terms of subclause (2) and join the National Party in voting this bill down. This is not pure party politics. This is an important issue. I ask members to consider it in the context of the electoral funding legislation that as we all know is designed to shut down political discourse during the regulated period. 
Mr Smith knew only too well what it was all about. I have referred to the letter that he wrote a few days before the general election on 14 September 2005 about the dangers of conflation. But come 5 October 2005 after the election Mr Smith knew only too well that a certain element of conflation had occurred with the document “ 
My Commitment to You” 
 the pledge card and the other brochure that was sent out to every household in New Zealand using parliamentary funds and that there was going to be a problem for the Labour Party. The offer that he made to include the cost of the material in the return furnished by the New Zealand Labour Party was unilaterally withdrawn because on 5 October 2005 he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer and said that he had had an opportunity to consider the matter—probably “she who must be obeyed” had told him what to write—and “I wish to advise that I withdraw my offer to have the amount expended on the material in question counted as an election expense since I do not believe it is properly accountable as such.” What is interesting is that when he wrote his letter on 14 September offering to include it as an election expense he had taken advice from senior counsel on matters relating to the correspondence. But that was certainly not the case when he acted on his own behalf on 5 October and said that he did not believe it was properly accountable as such. 
To illustrate the nauseating hypocrisy of Mr Smith we have a letter that was written on 14 September in which he sets out the concerns that he had if there were to be the same sets of rules to this correspondence. He emphasised the importance of members of Parliament communicating with their constituents. That is fair enough but do we do this sort of thing in the regulated period or in an election period? No we do not. The second thing he mentioned was the importance of section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which deals with the right of freedom of expression in New Zealand. Labour invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits it but when it comes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in relation to electoral finance legislation Labour snuffs it out as quickly as the brown shirts snuffed out freedom on Kristallnacht. 
The third thing Labour does is raise important issues of parliamentary privilege. It said that the Electoral Act has to be interpreted as not interfering with ancient privileges. It sounds good does it not until we realise the ancient privileges are all about the right of the Labour Party to send this shabby correspondence to electors in 2005. There is nothing ancient about it at all. Mr Smith really got things wrong. He relied on senior counsel when he offered to pay it back and acted unilaterally after the election when he told the Chief Electoral Officer to go and see a taxidermist. 
So what we have is utterly unsatisfactory legislation and the insertion of the word “explicitly” to make it clear beyond peradventure that when next year Labour has another pledge card rort and when it puts forward another one of these extraordinary documents 3 years on—and the Prime Minister will not have aged a day because her photo will still be the same although I must say she looks more like the emperor in  
Star Wars 
 in it—such as  
Working together sharing a vision 
 what we are going to have is this kind of foul communication being allowed to proceed. That is not good enough. 
The issue is: can we communicate with constituents in an election year in this way? The answer is no we cannot. The rules prior to 2005 were very very clear. The Auditor-General warned the Labour Party. The Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party. The Labour Party with malice aforethought ignored it. It allowed these brochures to be distributed and now using a cobbled together majority from members of Parliament who should know better it is going to introduce legislation that makes it permissible for this sort of nonsense to continue and that is not good enough. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What is so disturbing about clause 3 is that it effectively gives the fingers to the independent office of the Auditor-General. Judith Tizard who has absolutely no respect for independent institutions who said at the last general election that she and her Labour Party cheated by using public money against the law for the use of— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What are you doing in your backyard right now? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What members have said—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely! And what is more for the 17 years that I have been a member of Parliament I have been able to put out a newsletter. What I have not done is try to rort the system. I will oppose— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You are rorting it now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is the Labour Party—[ 
Interruption 
] Can I say this to the member. Has the Auditor-General ever found that I have breached the rules? Never. Has the Auditor-General found that Judith Tizard breached the rules? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes so I say to Judith Tizard that she is a cheat and a disgrace. She and her political party are trying to force through legislation that attempts to override the Auditor-General. 
I ask Judith Tizard to read what the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the  
Dominion Post  
have said about her party. The  
Dominion Post  
said that the Labour Party has not worked out the difference between what is good for democracy and what is good for the Labour Party. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 said that this is a rort and that democracy is under attack from the likes of Trevor Mallard and this Labour Party which has no respect. 
I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair. Clause 3 of this bill defines electioneering. But somewhat strangely another bill before the House has a completely different definition of electioneering. My question for the Minister asks how he can justify there being one definition for politicians and a different definition for the normal members of the public out there. There is a common basic root value of one law for all yet in this bill there is one set of laws for politicians and another for outsiders. 
I challenge Peter Brown: how does he excuse a definition of electioneering in this bill that is completely at odds with the definition of electioneering in another bill? [ 
Interruption 
] Well Lesley Soper—can she explain— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lesley Soper. I thought the word “electioneering” would have a single definition and I ask members opposite how they can justify that sort of double standard. Will Lesley Soper explain why we have two different definitions for electioneering? There is only one reason: Lesley Soper Judith Tizard and their colleagues know that the people of New Zealand have lost faith in them and they know that the only way they can hang on to power with their fingernails is to cheat and to erode the democratic proper rules under which we have elections. And it is a total disgrace. 
I point out the way in which the effect of this law will overrule the settled law arising from the Reg Boorman case. We all remember the occasion when Reg Boorman cheated under another Labour Government and was thrown out of this Parliament for rorting the law. But this bill makes legal what Reg Boorman did. That is right. Reg Boorman was found guilty of committing a corrupt practice. And every Labour MP wants to change the law so that every one of them can commit a corrupt practice. But National says that that is wrong. You see the combination— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Contempt’s pretty wrong too. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That member thinks that stuffing around with democracy is something not to feel passionate about; I do feel passionate about it. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 This is a very simple bill but I find it fascinating that this bill which National’s leader in the House agreed to has been twisted by the Opposition whose members seem so concerned about democracy. But actually what they cannot bear is losing. They lost the last election in spite of the fact that they threw millions of dollars—millions of dollars before the time they thought the actual campaign period was—at it and they still lost. They colluded with the Exclusive Brethren to try to rort the system. It has been fascinating to hear the number of National people who have said over the last 18 months “I didn’t come into Parliament to waste my time in Opposition.” They thought they had bought the last election and they are really upset that they did not succeed in doing that. Now they want to ensure they can buy the next election by opposing this legislation when all this legislation does is enable parliamentarians to do their job. 
It is a very simple bill. It has nothing to do with the hysteria we have had from the member for Nelson who is one of the people in this Chamber who knows better what it is like to be on the wrong side of a court. He understands what it is like to break the law. Most of us do not because most of us as members of Parliament do our damnedest to observe the law. That is what I have always done since 1990 when I was first elected. I am proud to be part of a Government that was elected by ordinary New Zealanders decent people who want a future for themselves their children and their grandchildren. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Bunch of cheats—corrupt cheats. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: And the National Party shouts “corrupt cheats” about those New Zealanders who are decent human beings who just want a future. They do not want their futures bought and usurped. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although the member has responded I certainly take offence at the comment made by Dr Nick Smith and ask for it to be withdrawn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If Dr Smith would withdraw it please. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: And what happens when people think they have bought something fair and square as the National Party thought it had bought the last election? They get upset and resort to personal abuse. Well we have had a lot of personal abuse in this House today. I am appalled that National members are so unsure of their own arguments that they choose to use what outside this House would be slander—that outside this House would be called words we cannot use in this House. 
I am delighted to support this bill which has the support of a majority of Parliament. And rather than shrieking personal abuse I suggest that members opposite get on with being decent MPs at which point they may start to regain some of the respect they have lost from even their own supporters. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We have just heard from the Hon Judith Tizard who was the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues until the Prime Minister took that role away—much I must say to the relief of Auckland. That Minister said that National Party members had said they did not come into Parliament to waste their time in Opposition. But I say that that member came into Parliament so that she could waste her time in Government; nobody has yet worked out what it is that she does for her money. 
What is very interesting about clause 3 of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is that it is all about legitimising the illegitimate. This Government is so desperate to stay in power that it is going to change the rules. The reason it is changing the rules is that that will stop ordinary New Zealanders from exercising their right to say what they think about their politics. We are here as representatives of every New Zealander—every single New Zealander has the right to have a view about politics. And this Government and its toadies in New Zealand First the Greens and United Future are absolutely dedicated to doing anything to stop ordinary New Zealanders saying that they have had enough of this Government and that they want to get rid of it. 
Certainly the Government wants to stop anybody who is not a member of Parliament from electioneering in the sort of way that this Government has done time and time again. All these sorts of brochures I am holding up and that my colleagues have held up are fine at this time of the year. But they are not OK in an election period which is what this Government is trying to change. It is trying to extend the electioneering period so that people will be able to use Government funding to put out electioneering brochures right up to the day of the election. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. New Zealanders say constantly now that they do not want to have their democracy taken apart because of the desire of the members of this Government never to have to get out into the real workforce. The fact is that most of them are unemployable anywhere else and the only one who can get a job—Steve Maharey—is already off. That says that this Government will do anything to stay in power because most of its members are unemployable anywhere else. There are simply not enough unions to take them back. So this bill is one of the things that we will fight against. 
One of the things that I thought was most interesting today was to hear from the Hon David Cunliffe. He is also known as “Captain Cunliffe” now because he is in charge of everything and he is running the show. That is what he has told us. He told us today that this is all about the fact that the Labour Government is going to deliver. Well the people of New Zealand are going to deliver something to Labour and its toady mates. They are going to deliver them the message that they want to be able to exercise their rights to be involved in politics. We are here as representatives of the people; the people are not actually here for us—[ 
Interruption 
]—I say to Ms Soper. It is quite the opposite. We are here for them. Just because Ms Soper is not confident about getting back again into Parliament that is no reason at all why the people of New Zealand should have their democracy under attack as rightly shown in the  
New Zealand Herald.  
The fact is that all this Government wants to do is to attack the media. All it is doing now is saying that the media is just a Tory institution. Well there are not many National MPs here who feel that the  
New Zealand Herald  
has ever been a Tory institution in their lifetime. It is quite the opposite. 
One of the most appalling things— 
Lesley Soper 
: Disgusting! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: What Ms Soper says is absolutely right. She says it is disgusting and she is right. She is absolutely right. It is disgusting that this Government is trying to push this bill through in this form and it is being supported by the very people we all see out on the hustings talking about transparency and the Kiwi way. This is when we have public funding paying for someone purporting to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is not “Labour. Forward”; it is “Labour. Backward.” That is the only way Ms Soper and her friends are going to go. 
Lesley Soper 
: They’re better off with Labour and you know it. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And she is absolutely right—people are better off with National. I thank Ms Soper; I thank her so much. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I will start my call by quoting from the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.” [ 
Interruption 
] Democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to do this to my colleague but is it appropriate for the Minister in the chair Mr Mallard with a microphone to be barracking a member who is on her feet? I do not believe that is in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Except on rare occasions the Minister is not meant to take part in the debate at all. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s supposed to be at his anger management course. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Any comments like that may be one of those rare occasions. We will start again with Kate Wilkinson. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will repeat what the  
New Zealand Herald  
said because I think it said it well on Monday— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why don’t you think for yourself? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is worth having it recorded in  
Hansard 
 I say to Mr Fairbrother because I think it is important to the democracy of our country. It is important that people have confidence in the democracy of our country and in our Parliament and I think that the people of New Zealand are very rapidly losing that confidence. The  
New Zealand Herald  
states: “Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I suggest the member just tables the document rather than read it all out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order Minister. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I say to the Minister that if I want him to write my speeches I will ask him to do so but he should not hold his breath. 
“Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage—a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election. The Clark Government’s refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information. Now having grudgingly repaid the public purse they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again … The interests of any healthy democracy lie in its unrestricted debate not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech. If these bills pass they will be Labour’s epitaph.” 
That is what the  
New Zealand Herald  
said on Monday and it is worth recording in  
Hansard 
 because this attempt is a disgrace. This is not democracy. This is not the Parliament that our people have elected us to represent them at and to be part of. This is not a Parliament that the people of New Zealand can have confidence in. 
We have in this clause 3 an exclusion relating to electioneering. It excludes communications that explicitly seek support for the election of a particular person or explicitly seek support for the casting of a party vote or explicitly encourage a person to become a member of a political party or explicitly solicit subscriptions or other financial support. This brochure I am holding does not say in effect “parliamentary advertising needs to say to vote for party X join party X or give money to party X” before it would be considered electioneering. This brochure  
Healthy Wealthy and Wise 
 does not say that. That is paid for by the taxpayer. This one  
Trevor Mallard MP for Hutt South Reports 
 is paid for by the taxpayer. I do not know what this next brochure says but it is paid for by the taxpayer. It is blatant; it is paid for by the taxpayer. Here is another brochure which is also paid for by the taxpayer as is this one. This is one rule for MPs and another rule for the public and that is abhorrent—one rule for MPs and another rule for the public. 
Again because I want it recorded in  
Hansard 
 I quote from what the  
Listener 
 says. It says it better than I can say it. If members want to know why I want to quote it it is because the  
Listener 
 uses the words better. But I want it in  
Hansard 
. I think it needs to be recorded there. The  
Listener 
 states: “It seems that Labour and its support parties … have found a way to legitimise election-period spending through their taxpayer-funded parliamentary budgets. Add such spending to the expensive ad campaigns to allegedly educate the public on policies like KiwiSaver or Working for Families and next year Labour in particular will be bleeding a lucrative vein of taxpayer-funded publicity. The public has been told that the ‘One Law for MPs Bill’ is only temporary. But so what?” the  
Listener  
says. “The period it covers is the only time that counts—right through election year. And there is nothing to stop the next government simply renewing it—temporarily of course. The public deserve better. Not only because the public are paying for it but because it is unfair for incumbent MPs to have a legalised advantage and because in election year there should be a level of robust participation that the Electoral Finance Bill will inhibit. The bill’s provisions are a shame and a shambles and New Zealand’s democracy will be poorer if they are passed.” 
That is what the  
Listener 
 said. I fear for our democracy when we have laws that are as shameful as invidious and as disgraceful as this one and I fear that confidence in our Parliament and in our democracy is being eroded and that it will take a long long time to recover. This is a disgrace. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We don’t want no foreigners here! 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member for the welcome! The other day I was called corrupt by the National Party but today the chief whip for the National Party said that I am a man of integrity. How does one get common sense out of that? 
The Hon Nick Smith asked an interesting question. I have taken my time and I want to address it. I have sat and listened to the National members and Kate Wilkinson touched on it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but I think that a call for immigrants to go home which came from my left is something this Parliament should not tolerate. I ask that that remark be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Anne Tolley 
: I did hear my colleague say “Go home” but there was no mention of immigrants. I think that slur has been deliberately put in by the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: To make it absolutely clear the remark followed a false English accent from Mr Williamson. It was part of the same exchange. It was disgraceful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am afraid that I did not hear it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I just want to tell the honourable members over there that if they were referring to me I have a certificate of citizenship signed by a former National Minister. I am a New Zealander by choice. They are New Zealanders by accident. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a further point of order. I think that Mr Bennett should actually tell the Committee that it was he who said it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is up to the member. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want to make a serious point here because I think the Hon Nick Smith endeavoured to make a serious point. He was talking about two definitions of electioneering the one in this document and the one that will come back to the House in the Electoral Finance Bill. I do not know what that definition will be when it comes back but it will be quite different from this one. I say to members that those two definitions work in tandem. They are compatible. This definition applies specifically to MPs and what we can do or perhaps more appropriately what we cannot do. If we seek membership if we seek money or if we seek votes we are electioneering and we are in breach of this legislation. That applies to MPs. But for MPs who are also candidates the new definition that is to come back in the Electoral Finance Bill will also apply to them equally as it applies to a candidate who is currently working anywhere. In other words if as individuals we stand in the next election as candidates and we are MPs the two definitions will apply to us. They are not to be regarded as being in conflict. They are compatible. They work in tandem. It is as simple as that. I am on public record as saying that we need this bill— 
Anne Tolley 
: Why do we need it? 
PETER BROWN 
: Because the Auditor-General in his wisdom ruled documents such as this one here out of order. 
Anne Tolley 
: That’s right. It broke the rules. 
PETER BROWN 
: It did not. The Auditor-General deemed that it broke the rules. But if I put this through the rules we have now and the Speaker’s directions it would be OK. I invite the National chief whip to put it through— 
Anne Tolley 
: It broke the rules. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was OK in 2002; a similar type of thing was OK in 1999; and it was OK in 2005 by the rules we had then. But the Auditor-General said that it broke the rules. The rules in the Speaker’s directions that several MPs including two from the National Party have sat for hours and hours to consider and have agreed upon are very much reflected in this bill. New Zealand First will not take a chance on the Auditor-General’s judgment. Under this bill we are protected. The Auditor-General got it wrong in 2005 and he could get it wrong again now. We need this legislation to protect us from the Auditor-General’s wisdom. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I got it right. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not going there. 
I listened to Tony Ryall whilst the honourable Minister Ruth Dyson was speaking. He was interjecting quite vocally and saying that these rules should not apply during an election period. That is the whole purpose of the bill. Its whole purpose is to say what MPs can or cannot do during an election period. That is the whole point of it. I unashamedly tell members that New Zealand First members will go out and say what we expect to achieve politically—what we stand for. By doing that we came up with this document. It is the confidence and supply agreement we have with these folk over here. What did we achieve? 
Judith Collins 
: Baubles! 
PETER BROWN 
: We achieved 1000 more police. Is that a bauble? We achieved free health-care for under 6-year-olds. We achieved the golden age card for senior citizens. Are they baubles? [ 
Interruption 
] They love it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak in support of— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’ll get the closure after this one. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: —we will come to the member—National’s opposition to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Surely the Government could have come up with a more accurate title than that. 
Lesley Soper 
: We’re not talking about the title. We’re on clause 3. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Listen to those Government members. They have nothing to say. 
When I look at clause 3 which we are debating at the moment I see provisions to undermine democracy in this country. That is what this is all about. It is one more insidious socialist step to undermine democracy in New Zealand. I am proud to be on this side of the Chamber and to be contributing to the debate in defence of the fine New Zealand democratic tradition. 
We have to ask this question: why did Labour not declare the pledge card? Every New Zealander knows the answer. There are 850000 reasons and they are called dollars—taxpayers’ dollars. When I look at the material I have here I see all this red stuff. Just by coincidence the one on the top of my pile happens to be in the name of the Minister in the chair—“ 
Trevor Mallard MP for Hutt South Reports 
”. I am given to reflect— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Should that go out close to the election? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What I am worried about I say to Mr Ryall is that it will go into somebody’s letterbox in Hutt South and a child coming home from school will as children do rush to the letterbox get the mail and see this document. That child will not think “Paid for by my parents.”; he or she will think “Oh my God it must be Halloween.” The tragedy of that is that the Government wants this sort of stuff paid for by that child’s parents—the taxpayer. Nobody who believes in the fundamental tenets of democracy will believe that that should happen. Mr Clarkson can have the document; I never want to see it again. 
This bill is all about distorting the role of the democratic process at election time. I suggest to this Committee that those of us who are privileged to be members of Parliament have an extra responsibility particularly at election time to ensure that those who wish to put up their names in opposition to us have as fair a crack at the battle— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Ha ha! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Listen to the member for Auckland Central cackling and laughing. That is the level of her respect for democracy. That is her contempt for the people of New Zealand and her contempt for those who would seek to offer their names in opposition to her. I am delighted to be able to tell the Committee that in next year’s election that member will be held accountable by the people of Auckland Central and she will be gone as will many of her colleagues. 
Now I will get back to the important point I was making. It is a simple fundamental tenet of democracy that those who would seek to challenge us for our seats are entitled to a fair crack. Next year they should not have to go into an election campaign knowing that they are running against an incumbent member of Parliament who has access to taxpayers’ money to pay for that sort of stuff. That is what the Government is attempting to do with this legislation. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Peter Brown let the cat out of the bag when he said we need this bill to protect us from the Auditor-General. That is what he said. That was the cheek of his comment. If an average member of the public cheats on the taxpayers’ money it is the Auditor-General who catches that person out. If an official who works in a school uses the school’s money for a purpose other than educating kids it is the Auditor-General who gives that person the ping. If a doctor who works in a hospital does not use the public money as intended for health that person gets pinged by the Auditor-General. But the Labour Party and its mates like Peter Brown say: “No not those rules for us. We want to be able to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General looking into the ways in which we wish to rort public money.” 
Just to show how extensive the contest is I ask members to remember that the public money that is voted each year is $17 million. The amount of money that a party is able to use legally is only $2.5 million. So what members opposite seek to do is to use public money in a way that has never lawfully been previously allowed and at the same time shut down people using their own money. It is a true disgrace and an attack on democracy. If we lived in a country like the United States which has a constitution this measure would get overruled in terms of the principles of free speech. If we lived in a country like Australia or the United Kingdom we would have the check of an upper Chamber. In New Zealand we do not have that. That is what saddens me so much—Labour members of this Committee are so prepared to abuse our fragile democracy by simply abusing the powers of this bill to try to rort the next election. 
I also want to respond to the bizarre point from Peter Brown that somehow he in his mind can justify two different definitions of electioneering. Let us put it plainly. This bill says that electioneering is only that which explicitly seeks support—that which explicitly seeks support for a vote. Then we have this other bill the Electoral Finance Bill which says: “No no if anybody expresses any opinion on any issue at all it is electioneering.” I ask Mr Brown why that difference in definition is so significant. It is significant because it says that when we stand hand on heart and say: “Oh we won’t use parliamentary money for electioneering.” we can say absolutely everything bar “vote”. As long as we do not use the word “vote” we can rort the public purse for all it is worth. 
But it is even worse than that. We have a limit that has been considered by all parties of this Parliament to be fair for yonks and that is that we are to spend only $20000 in the last 3 months of a campaign. But there is a sneaky little clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that says that publicly funded ads will now be exempt. Let us be honest about what that means. In my case for example that means that I get a constituency allowance of $65000 under the bulk-funding system. I can spend all of that in the last month of the campaign but anybody who wants to stand against me as MP for Nelson is restricted to $20000. 
Labour members say that that is a fair contest. I say that that is garbage. I say that that is a rort and I cannot believe that those in the Green Party in New Zealand First and in Labour can somehow pretend that passing a law of that sort sets up a fair contest to hold the privileged position of being a member of this House. The truth is that they are undermining this valuable democratic institution. It is only by a fair contest for the privileged seats in this House that we can truly say we have a democracy. What they are doing with this bill is turning this Parliament into a closed shop. They want to make it too hard for those who would challenge because they want to maintain a monopoly on Government and it is wrong. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call because I would like to speak on the number of significant amendments being put forward by National Party members in this Committee. I want to support the amendment from Anne Tolley that will put further restrictions on what parties can do in the election period and will make sure that the rules are the same as in the electoral finance legislation. If the Government is so keen on the Electoral Finance Bill then it should vote for Anne Tolley’s amendment. 
I also want to support Chris Finlayson’s amendments which will make it clear that whether or not it is explicit that a party is seeking support through its printed material it is an election expense. That is the problem with this bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill. 
The red printing presses have been running overtime. Here they are—one after the other—taxpayer-funded brochures being sent out all around the country at the taxpayers’ expense together with this photo of a woman who purports to look like the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The brochures have been put out all around the country. They are paid for by taxpayers’ money and they are fine this year. The brochures are fine this year but where this bill oversteps the mark as Gerry Brownlee told the Government is that a party should not be allowed to put them out in the months before an election. That is what Gerry Brownlee and the National Party members have said. 
I say to the Labour Party members that they should put out brochures in the non-election period but they should not be allowed to do it in the election period. In the weeks before the election they should not be able to put out brochures including the phrases “thousand-dollar savings” “kick-start” “more support for families” “lower tax” and “support for patients” and say that that is not electioneering. Of course it is electioneering if the material is put out in the weeks before an election. 
It is the same for the pamphlet  
Supporting Kiwi Business 
. A party should not be allowed to put that out before an election and that is what this bill allows. It states that this sort of material which is fine in a non-election period should not go out in an election period and that if it does go out in an election period then it should be counted as an election expense. If a Labour Party candidate who is not a member of Parliament puts this out in the weeks before an election it is an election expense and it counts. But if a Labour MP puts this material out in the weeks before an election it is an MP’s expenditure and does not count. That is not right. 
I say to the Government that it is not too late. What has happened in this Parliament in the whole time I and other members have been here is that this sort of electoral-related legislation is always done on a bipartisan or multiparty basis. The only thing that the two big parties ever used to disagree on was when the electoral roll should close. National always said a month before the election and Labour said on the day before the election. We gave in on that in the end. We have been supporting that provision for some years now. 
The two main parties agreed on virtually everything for this reason: we cannot have the rules change every election depending on who wins. That is what Labour is inviting future Parliaments to do—the majority will jackboot over the minority to favour the majority. That is what the Government and its cronies are doing. They are inviting future Parliaments to change the rules every election to suit whoever is in power. The Ministers do not mind. When they lose in 2008 they are out in 2011. It is the Labour Party people who are standing in 2011 who should be standing up to their leaders and saying: “Look what we’re doing to them may be done to us in 3 years’ time.” 
That is why we have always had the rule in Parliament that when it comes to important electoral legislation or spending rules we basically get agreement between the two main parties because it is unhealthy for the rules to change every election. That is why the National Party says it is not too late to look back and change and let us move forward together with a number of rules that suit New Zealand. The Government should not make a fool of itself and invite retaliation from future Parliaments. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to subclause (1) be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after “In the Parliamentary Service Act” and substitute the words “Funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes will be those which existed in the months before the 2005 general election.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to subclause (2) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “explicitly” and substitute the words “directly or indirectly”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Anne Tolley be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause (2A): 
(a)electioneering also includes any communication— 
(i)encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for one or more specified parties or one or more candidates or for any combination of such parties or candidates; 
(ii)encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or candidate is stated); and 
(b)includes a candidate advertisement and a party advertisement. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no pledge card promoted by the Labour Party shall constitute a communication under subsection (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Expiry 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Parliament must amend the expiry date of this bill. It must amend the expiry date of this bill for this very reason. This legislation cannot apply in the way that it does in the period of the run-up to the next election. It cannot apply. It is simply unfair that if the Labour candidate for a seat who is not a member of Parliament puts out material such as this pamphlet from the red-hot printing presses then it is an election expense. It is an election expense according to the law and according to this bill. 
Hon Member 
: Or a New Zealand First member. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Or if a New Zealand First candidate puts this sort of material out. But if a member of Parliament puts out this material then he or she is given immunity by this legislation. He or she is given immunity from being caught by the election finance rules. 
Hon Member 
: Can’t be right. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is absolutely true. This bill contains a provision that states that this material when given out by an MP in the weeks before the election is not electioneering but that if it is given out by a party candidate who is not in Parliament then it would be regarded as electioneering. 
That is what is simply wrong with this bill. This bill states that if one is a member of Parliament then one has a different set of rules for one’s spending in an election year from those for everyone else’s. That is not right. That is Robert Mugabe at his best. It is Robert Mugabe at his best because in Zimbabwe there are special rules for the governing party and different rules for the Opposition. We are on the fast track to having that situation here. 
That is why I support the amendments to this expiry date. What I think should happen is that this law should expire before the election. This bill should be replaced by one that all parties agree on and it should state that members of Parliament who use taxpayers’ money to send out pledge cards and other electioneering material will be caught by the electioneering legislation. It is as simple as that. The Labour Party pledge card will be legalised under this bill and the Labour Party will be able to repeat that exercise with impunity and immunity under this legislation. That is simply wrong. 
Let us rehearse what National is saying here: let us have the rules that applied before the 2005 general election because those rules were clear. They stated that if a party spent taxpayers’ money for electioneering purposes then that money should be refunded and that expenditure should be included within that party’s spending limit. That is what was stated and it was simple. Who could not understand that? Well 800000 reasons point to the Labour Party which was warned 3 weeks before the election that its pledge card would be included as election expenditure. That letter was sent by the Chief Electoral Officer at the time David Henry to the Labour Party’s general secretary Mike Smith and Mike Smith in the remaining 3 weeks approved close to $1.5 million of election spending. He had every opportunity to obey the law and the advice he had been given by the Chief Electoral Officer so what did he do? What did the Labour Party do? The Labour Party wrote and said that it would incorporate that money in its spending return. 
History shows that Labour did not do that. Labour did not include it in its spending return. The Auditor-General found that its spending was illegal and that it stole the money from the taxpayers of New Zealand and subsequently it stole the election. If the National Party had been able to spend as much money as the Labour Party did at the last election—we conservatively estimate that the Labour Party and the unions spent probably from $1.5 million to $2 million in support of Labour’s election campaign—a different Government would be running the country today. If National had been able to spend the $3.2 million that Labour spent in the last election campaign then a different Government would be running this country today. Labour stole taxpayers’ money and it stole the election. 
This Government is an illegitimate Government and this bill seeks to legitimise its overspending and to say to the people of New Zealand that what it did was right. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill no progress on the Building Amendment Bill no progress on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Human Tissue Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.