Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6720] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 When the validation legislation was going through this House a few weeks ago Labour made very strong protests of the nature that it had not known that the spending was illegal and did not know that the pledge card would be included in its election spending as it had never been in the past. Labour said it should therefore be forgiven. That was the basis of Labour’s defence—that it did not know the spending was illegal so it was passing retrospective legislation to validate its actions. 
Well today I will table a number of documents at the end of this speech. The first one is a file note written by David Henry the former Chief Electoral Officer dated 30 August. The note states: “I telephoned Mike Smith General secretary NZLP re the attached”—the pledge card—“(which is being distributed nationwide to letterboxes … I asked him why it did not carry an authorisation statement. He says that it is being paid for by Parliamentary Services and is therefore not required to have one. He also says it does not call for the party vote. … I said that: 1. who pays for it does not matter 2. it does not need to specifically call for the party vote. so far as the Electoral Act is concerned.” I want members of the House to remember that date—30 August. The election did not occur until 17 September. In other words 18 days were left to run when the Labour Party was told that in quite specific terms by the Chief Electoral Officer. 
But David Henry was sensible and in the next 2 days he put that advice in writing. I will be seeking to table the letter from David Henry dated 2 September which says those same words again to the Labour Party. It says that the pledge card would be included as election spending and should have carried the authorisation and that the fact that it was being paid for from Parliamentary Service funds was actually irrelevant as was the fact that it did not specifically ask for the party vote. The letter goes on: “Would you please … confirm that the advertising is being distributed … advise whether you or your delegate authorised the advertising … state why the advertising carries no statement setting out the name and address of the person” who authorised it. I ask members to listen to the fourth point because it is a doozy: “put forward any points you wish to make as to why this matter should not be referred to the Police as an illegal practice.” Did members hear that? That is what the Chief Electoral Officer said to Labour on both 30 August and 2 September. 
Had Labour wanted to comply with the electoral law it could have easily cut back on other election spending and kept itself within the limit. But oh no it tried to hoodwink the public of New Zealand by saying that it was a bit rich to come back after the election was all over and say the rules had changed. No the rules had not changed. More important Labour was given a full absolute warning by David Henry. I have another letter here from David Henry dated 12 September which goes further into the matter. Again it was written before the actual election day—a full 5 days before—and said to Labour that it could not keep spending at the level it was spending at because the pledge card was incorporated in its election spending. 
It becomes really interesting when we get to the shenanigans over the smokescreen which I have to say is nothing short of what people have said about the stadium on the waterfront. I refer to a letter written by Trevor Mallard the Minister for Sport and Recreation. He wrote this in a letter to a person in Tauranga—the House will love this; it is one of my personal favourites: “… Government support of events such as the America’s Cup and the Rugby World Cup are investments not donations. Full analysis including an independent assessment of the potential economic impact was undertaken before any decision was taken by Government to support the Rugby World Cup bid.” Members should remember that—a full analysis and independent assessment; an independent economic evaluation. Yet that same Minister tells this House that he does not know what the stadium will cost. He says he has no idea what the stadium will cost or what it will actually blow out to yet he says there has been a full independent analysis. He says that robust numbers were compiled. 
But here is my personal favourite—I ask the House to listen to this; this is what the Minister Trevor Mallard stated: “We do not need a national stadium as such to host the event. The developments proposed for Eden Park are sufficient for us to be considered a serious bidder.” for the Rugby World Cup. 
So there is the Minister stating in writing that we do not need a national stadium. There is the Minister stating that in fact the full economic costings have been done and none of it is true. 
I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a copy of a file note written by the former Chief Electoral Officer David Henry dated 30 August. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Secondly I wish to table a letter dated 2 September 2005 to the Labour Party general secretary Mike Smith from the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Thirdly I would like to table a letter dated 12 September to the general secretary of the Labour Party from the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Fourthly I would like to table a letter dated 12 August 2005 from the Hon Trevor Mallard in which he says to a Mr R Jordan of 20 Talbot Place Tauranga that there is no need for a national stadium and that the developments at Eden Park are sufficient for the Rugby World Cup. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.