Mapp Wayne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mapp Wayne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1184] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The question I ask of this House and of this country is whether political morality matters. Is it still relevant or do we live in an era where anything we can get away with is OK and that that is the only test that matters? If that is the answer it is not surprising that New Zealanders routinely now put politicians at the bottom of the scale when it comes to trustworthiness. 
I suggest to the members on the Labour benches that Helen Clark’s actions—and I mention her specifically because it is her photo and signature on the pledge card and she says to Labour conferences that she is accountable—have brought this country to a new low. She is happy and pleased I suggest to use public money to breach electoral spending limits. She cannot suggest and indeed has not suggested that she was in ignorance of it because she knows the truth of the matter. She must have known that Labour would exceed its spending limit by hundreds of thousands of dollars by issuing that card in the middle of an election campaign. Campaigns like that do not just happen by chance; they are planned over many months. 
Earlier today Mr Ryall pointed out that it is not just the card but also the brochure that went out a few days later which cost probably at least as much as the card—perhaps a total of nearly $1 million above the expenditure limit. Let us just think about this extra $1 million—$400000 for the card and probably another $400000 or more for the brochure itself. Does it matter? Well I suggest that it does. Controls on political advertising exist for one fundamental reason: to ensure that the political contest is fair. New Zealanders value hugely that concept of fairness. In fact it is one of the issues of self-identification we have as a people; it is one of our defining characteristics. Unfair tactics are tactics associated with cheaters. In this case the Labour Party intended to cheat New Zealanders and steal an election. I will be honest: that credit card and that brochure were a slick production. They were skilfully put together and were intended to influence people. They were easy to read easy to digest and easy to remember. Labour intended that to be the case. It wanted that card to make a difference—and it probably did. It was possibly the difference between winning and losing. The real problem is that it was illegal but Labour simply does not care. Labour members do not care that plainly they breached the law. 
We can compare that situation with that of Bob Clarkson. If he had overspent by a single dollar he would not be a member of Parliament today. In fact he could not even have stood again in the election. One dollar in excess would have been enough to disbar him. Labour has spent perhaps a million dollars more and there will be no consequences or only consequences that those members think do not matter. Maybe someone will be fined. Well who cares about that? Maybe someone will go to jail perhaps for 1 year. Maybe Helen Clark does not care whether her president or some other person—Heather Simpson maybe—goes to jail. So what? Labour achieved its desired outcome by winning the election. 
Electoral law does depend on integrity because it depends on those people who seek public office observing the law. After all if politicians do not observe the law how can we possibly tell the rest of the public to obey the law? We set examples here and we expect others to follow. National members went to great lengths to check whether various items of expenditure were legitimate and when there was doubt we would inquire of the Electoral Commission. I have seen some of those letters; I am knowledgable in this particular area. 
What did Labour do? Well if I go by what Pete Hodgson has said the most those members did was to have an informal chat with their lawyer. There was nothing in writing just a few oral questions. They just bounced a few ideas off each other—possibly in a bar over a drink or two. Do members know why they did that? It was because they did not want to know the truth. I suggest that is the mark of the wrongdoer. Wrongdoers do not want to know what the law actually is. They fear the truth because knowing the truth lands them with guilty intent. So the last thing they would do is to ask. They go along thinking: “I can get away with this.” And that has been Labour’s reaction on this whole issue—to get away with it. 
There is a pattern I suggest. The Prime Minister has forged paintings; the police said so. She drove through the South Island like some kind of Eastern potentate. She thinks the law does not apply to her. In fact what was her response? She said to the taxpayers: “Buy me a private jet and your problems will be solved.” So in her view this breach can be explained as being technical. Her view is that the law is muddled everyone does it and no harm was done. But I suggest that deep harm has been done to the integrity of this nation. If we imagine for instance that there had been UN observers at this election and information came to light that one of the parties was cheating in its advertising we know there would be an international report to say that New Zealand elections are unfair and that one party was rorting the system. 
So why does Labour even do this? It does it obviously to win elections but to what purpose? It seems to us and indeed the nation that the sole purpose of Labour today is simply to retain power. Those members are tired and they have run out of ideas. We even have the cynicism of the Minister of Finance saying to a select committee that we may not get a tax cut. It is the cynicism of retaining power and breaching promises in a cavalier and indifferent way as if they do not matter. Of course if power is one’s only end I guess they do not matter because that is the end unto itself. That is the sorry spectacle that we see now—a tired Government for whom the end is everything and the means does not matter; as long as it gets it there that is sufficient. 
Well there does come a judgment day. I have actually been part of a Government that was judged by the public and the public—let us be honest—saw that we had kind of run out of steam. Part of that is to do with a Government’s conduct in office. I suggest we have never seen such blatant misconduct in office as with this Government. We have a stench of corruption a cavalier attitude towards observing the law and a blatant attempt to steal an election—the most violent thing one can do to the democratic process. I suggest that Labour will not shake off this stench. It has made too many errors too many compromises and has broken too many laws for the public of New Zealand to forgive or to forget. I say to all the members on the other side of the House—Ministers and otherwise—that they should make the most of it now because beyond 2008 or whenever they will not see additional days in office. They are mired in muck muck of their own making. They will be the authors of their demise and frankly I and many other New Zealanders cannot wait but to see that day.