Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1306] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 After listening to that speech members of the public who are listening to this debate will be desperately hoping that this Government lasts another 2 years if that is the quality of analysis that is on offer from the Opposition. When they extrapolate back to this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement which has really emerged as a leaders’ debate we can see how to judge the Leader of the Opposition. One judges a leader by how strongly the foot soldiers can follow the party line. Either the foot soldiers of the National Party are following the party line very seriously which really suggests that they are capable of double standards or there is mayhem among the foot soldiers. 
We just need to look at a recent example in Hawke’s Bay—on Thursday and Friday in fact—which was referred to today by the Minister of Immigration during question time. Craig Foss a money speculator who has turned into a vote speculator decided to take on the judicial system by way of a press statement because he realised that the only way to get known in Hawke’s Bay and to retain any standing having ridden here to Parliament on the coat-tails of the Exclusive Brethren was to try to hog the headlines. After 5 months he is becoming increasingly desperate to make sure he gets headlines. So on Thursday he published a press statement that described the arrest of 16 illegal immigrants as lacking in common sense and foolish. Of course the judge having read those comments locked those people up remanded them in custody and ordered they not leave the cells until they were deported from New Zealand. 
Craig Foss not only took a cheap shot at the Government but he has also brought into question the judgment of the judiciary. Is he saying that Judge Watson—Richard Watson—was in the Hastings District Court last week lacking in common sense? Is he saying that was flawed judgment? Is he really trying to tell the populace of Hawke’s Bay and in fact of New Zealand that an experienced District Court judge who has been sitting on the bench now for about 12 years—with an outstanding reputation in practice—is a man who is lacking in common sense? The alternative could be of course that the one law for all mantra which is one that appeals of course to the Exclusive Brethren—who choose not to vote but just to subsidise some very unsavoury practices—only applies when one wants it to apply and is put to one side when one does not want it to apply. So when after those 16 people were arrested because they had been here illegally that man Craig Foss rushed off to the media and said the arrests lack common sense and surely those people could have been allowed to work in breach of the law we wonder where the leadership of the National Party is on the mantra of one law for all. We know where that leadership is and I will come to that in a short minute. 
The third most important message that the actions of one Craig Foss gave was that alluded to by the Minister today. It is that there is a desire by the National Party to drive down the wage rates of unskilled or low-skilled workers in New Zealand below decent standards down to the standards of Viet Nam India Pakistan and other countries that Craig Foss clearly feels we should emulate when it comes to wages whereas this Government as the Prime Minister said at the opening of the debate is striving to lift the wage economy to a standard we can all be pleased about and have some pride in. 
 We can see where Mr Foss is learning his practices from—practices that he may one day live to regret and that will upset those people of moral fortitude in the Hawke’s Bay. We have heard repeatedly from experienced members of the National Party the use of words that suggest corruption and rort and terms that should not be allowed in this House but that are being waved around freely. National Party members are confusing two different concepts—and deliberately one might say. They are accusing the pledge card that came out of the Prime Minister’s budget of being a party expense. The pledge card has been funded from the leader’s budget for the last three elections—that is 9 years. There was not one murmur of any sort of corrupt practice until someone suggested that the matter should be referred to the police. No finding has been made of any bad or illegal practice and of course there will not be any such finding. 
But of course the argument is not really about the Labour Party; it is about the National Party trying to create a smokescreen for its own practices which fall foul of section 214 of the Electoral Act 1993. Section 214B(3) defines what may be a corrupt practice. It states that any person who “… pays or knowingly aids or abets any person in paying for or on account of any election expenses any sum in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by this section is—(a) if the act is done with knowledge that the payment is in excess of the maximum amount prescribed by this section guilty of a corrupt practice;”. And what do we have in the National Party? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes this is embarrassing; members are lifting the volume. They are trying to hide behind a smokescreen. Those members should vent their lungs because this is important. When the National Party spent up to the maximum on broadcasting and did not include GST its members tried to say that they did not realise they had to pay GST. But what did the High Court find in 1988? It was reported in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 of 1988 on page 77 that payments must include GST for the purposes of the Electoral Act. 
Since 1988 it has been declared law that advertising costs include GST. That is one of the aspects that got Wyatt Creechinto this House. Every National Party member who supported Wyatt Creech would have read that judgment—as would National’s lawyers. National members cannot come to this House and allege corrupt practice when they know what they are trying to cover up: a wilful breach of section 214 of the Electoral Act. It has been settled law since 1988 that payments attributable under the Act must include GST. Where is all the bellowing now? 
David Bennett 
: It’s our money. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: “It’s our money.” says “Shylock” over there turning the other cheek. Of course it is the New Zealand public’s money. That is what the National Party is worried about because it is hiding practices that clearly breach the law. You can only argue against that by creating a smokescreen in the hope that the police will say that there is too much going on and that they will not prosecute. That is the only defence you have and your legal team will have advised your leader that that is the only possible defence. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member on his feet despite your earlier warning is continuing to bring you into the debate and I do not think that he should do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. I had noticed it. The member was quite passionate in his debate but I ask him to be careful about that. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The National Party is guilty of an egregious offence under section 214 of the Electoral Act because it has known since 1988 from one of its own cases that GST is payable on election expenses including broadcasting. The Act states that if a party knowingly exceeds those expenses then that is a corrupt act—signed sealed and delivered. The National Party’s only defence against that as its high-priced doctorate legal team will be telling it is to cause so much confusion that the police will say to the National Party—the leaderless National Party—that they regard it as a trivial matter. National members think that if they create enough confusion then hopefully the issue will go away and they can live to fight another day. 
So we will watch with eagerness the way the National Party deals with section 214B(3) of the Electoral Act. We can already see the electoral returns of some of its other foot soldiers. I of course refer to the property speculator—now a votes speculator—Chris Tremain the member for Napier. Following the Bob Clarkson petition which has outraged many people who have read the law for many years on the issue Chris Tremain has decided to omit from his return matters that previously would have been included and driven his return to in excess of $20000. 
The interesting thing about that return is that the law and order policies of the National Party have been subsidised by supporters of the Sensible Sentencing Trust so much so that— 
Bob Clarkson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a little offended. Three judges in the High Court made a decision on what I spent and they decided that I was correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debatable issue and the member is quite entitled to take a call when the occasion arises. 
Bob Clarkson 
: The member is saying it; why can I not argue about it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I direct the member to Speaker’s rulings 36/4 and 37/4 which are to do with misrepresentation. I suggest that the member look at those Speaker’s rulings and also at Standing Orders 106(1) and (2). 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member is probably getting hot from sitting down and we know the problem that the member has with heat when he sits down for too long. He is probably airing the areas that need to be aired from time to time. 
I conclude my speech by referring to the poverty issues that exist in Hawke’s Bay which are being relieved by the very very thoughtful Working for Families package that comes into effect on 1 April. Hawke’s Bay has some of the saddest poverty levels in the country. That is revealed by the district health board analysis of last year which showed that the district health board has some of the worst health statistics in New Zealand. They arise because on an objective analysis being on a benefit is a status of poverty in New Zealand. The poverty study of 1998 described poverty as being applied mainly to beneficiaries and to perhaps 80 to 85 percent of New Zealand’s Maori population. Working for Families is a celebration of the end of poverty which was institutionalised by the previous National Government during the 1990s. I am delighted that the package will come into force in New Zealand and in particular in Napier on 1 April. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I advise members of the House that the New Zealand First members have split their call and will get a bell at 1 minute.