Volume 644 Week 63 - Wednesday 5 December 2007 
Volume 644 Week 63 - Wednesday 5 December 2007 
[Volume:644;Page:13497] 
Wednesday 5 December 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday Gerry Brownlee raised a point of order concerning the lodging of question for oral answer No. 8. The question as originally directed by the member to the Minister of State Services addressed remarks made by another Minister the Minister for the Environment relating to matters relevant to the State Services Commission investigation of the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment. The Clerk’s Office having been so advised by the Cabinet Office informed Mr Brownlee that ministerial responsibility for this investigation now resided with the Minister of Justice and that the question should therefore be addressed to the Minister of Justice. 
A member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question. The matters addressed in the question as originally lodged were not ones where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. Standing Order 369(a) allows questions to be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. Speaker’s Ruling 138/1 makes it clear that it is not a matter for the Speaker or the House to determine which Minister has responsibility for the public affairs to which a question relates. The arrangement of administrative responsibility within Cabinet is an internal arrangement. The Government determines which Minister is responsible. 
Ministerial responsibility is not being avoided. A decision has been taken that it should reside with another Minister. Questions must be addressed to the Minister who is responsible. In this instance that is now the Minister of Justice. However there should be clarity about ministerial responsibility. Although the Government may make changes of this nature it does make the situation more complex for members lodging questions. Ideally such changes should be rare arising only from real and significant conflicts of interest. Where they do occur it would be helpful to members if the Government were to ensure members are officially informed. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a long ruling. It draws on the experience of the House and we of course accept that you have given a ruling in this way. The issue of ministerial delegations though immediately comes to mind. It is now some weeks since Cabinet was reshuffled yet there is still no formal list of the delegations for the various Ministers who sit outside Cabinet and it is not clear exactly where the delegations do lie in Cabinet. Madam Speaker has your office received any such information? If not when would you expect the House to be able to understand the way in which the Government is constructing its ministry? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the Government and I am sure we will all be informed in time. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to perhaps give some thought to a matter that is close to the matter you have just ruled upon. It is accepted of course that Ministers have a right to transfer to redirect a question to another Minister. But I think as I look at page 137 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that it is clear that the purpose for that redirection is to ensure that the most appropriate Minister can answer that question. It is also apparent in Speakers’ ruling 138/3 that the Speaker has the discretion to refuse to allow the redirection of a question to another Minister where the Speaker considers this to be an abuse—in other words where the purpose is one that is different from ensuring that the most appropriate Minister answers the question. I would like at some stage some indication that Ministers who avoid answering a question through a redirection would be brought to heel by yourself using that precedent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As Mr Brownlee noted considerable thought was given to the ruling I have read out. The point that the member raised was addressed there. 
Questions to Ministers 
Climate Change—2-degree Limit 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he accept the assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade … substantial global impacts will occur such as species extinctions and millions of people at risk from drought hunger flooding.”; if so will he be advocating at Bali for a global agreement that this 2-degree limit should not be exceeded? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The New Zealand Government relies heavily upon the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific advice. Its advice is that if temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius are to be avoided that would require greenhouse gas concentrations to be limited to between 450 and 550 parts per million in the atmosphere and we will be advocating for the targets for the post-2012 agreement to be based upon scientific advice. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that developing countries like China and India are more likely to come on board if a nation’s allocation is based on its population rather than on its wealth and will New Zealand support per capita entitlements for nations rather than targets that entrench current inequalities? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Per capita emissions are one of the very relevant things that should have primacy in the negotiations. I would not agree that they are the only matter that needs to be taken into account but I do agree with the general proposition that developed countries have to drop their emissions by more than developing countries can be expected to act on. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Is New Zealand well placed to implement a post-2012 international agreement? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Whatever the post-2012 agreement is yes New Zealand will be well placed to meet it. The New Zealand emissions trading scheme introduced to the House yesterday together with the previously announced New Zealand Energy Strategy and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy as well as the sustainable land management plan and other measures mean we are very well placed to implement a post-2012 agreement. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister be confident I guess even with the best will in the world that a global agreement could ensure that the 2-degree limit would not be exceeded; if not would it not be prudent for the global community to plan to mitigate the consequences of drought hunger and flooding through desalination through the building of levies etc. and through the movement and resettlement of people for their safety? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the first part of the question it is rather a depressing spectre at the moment. The scientists themselves in the quote that was in the primary question state—and I will read the full sentence: “If warming is to be kept below two degrees this will require the strongest mitigation efforts and currently this looks very unlikely to be achieved.” That is rather depressing news and really it just makes it all the more pressing that the countries of the world get together to make sure that the situation does not get as bad as it could. In terms of the second part of the question yes adaptation is also an important issue and countries do need to take prudent measures to adapt to the levels of climate change that may be unavoidable. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the emissions trading system relies after 2012 on us purchasing quite a lot of credits from overseas countries and if his objective of all countries coming into a climate change treaty is met where will New Zealand be able to purchase all those emissions from by 2025 when future targets are likely to be very tight? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The first point I would make is that the Government would expect that substantial emissions reductions will occur in New Zealand. The second point really relates to the member’s first supplementary question which is that if the expectation is that developed countries have to do more than developing countries the reality is that Kyoto mechanisms allow some of that effort and expense on the part of developed countries to be most cost-effectively spent in developing countries so they may be funding some of the emissions reductions in developing countries. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the New Zealand Government be supporting at least in principle the Tropical Deforestation Emissions Reduction Mechanism or TDERM proposed by Greenpeace in Bali yesterday which would allow developed countries to meet some of their target by paying to protect tropical forests in developing countries? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: New Zealand has been supportive of the principle of avoided deforestation being included in an international agreement since that idea was first mooted by Papua New Guinea some 2 or 3 years ago. New Zealand supported that at the first opportunity. So we remain supportive of the principle that avoided deforestation needs to be included in international efforts. I have not read the proposal that Greenpeace put yesterday but I would expect that it would be a thoughtful contribution on the issue. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Legal Advice 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday when asked how she expects well-intentioned honest ordinary New Zealanders to understand the Electoral Finance Bill that “One expects people to read it carefully and to consult lawyers”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because well-intentioned honest ordinary New Zealanders are not the focus of this legislation. Those who plan large advertising campaigns have always needed to be conscious of electoral law which of course is why at the last election the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party colluded to stay just within the electoral law meaning that a $1.2 million campaign could be run by the Exclusive Brethren without being charged against the National Party’s allocation. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the legislation is so badly drafted that last night the Minister of Justice spent the evening telling the House that the views that she was expressing were her views and clearly not the Government’s views and that the reason is that the law is so incomprehensible the officials cannot even explain it to the Minister so she can present the Government’s views? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and no but I do note with amusement that the Opposition keeps saying the law is badly drafted then opposes every amendment to it. 
John Key 
: Was the Prime Minister concerned yesterday then when the Minister of Justice was so confused in her interpretation that she said—and I quote from her  
Hansard 
—“I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong. I might be wrong. In fact I am prepared to admit that I could be wrong. I read the comments of Bill English today in a question to the House. He might be right …”; and is it not worrying to the Prime Minister that my deputy leader understands the legislation when her Minister clearly does not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is nothing wrong in this life with the fact that the Minister may admit that she may be wrong. The fact that even after 17 years in Parliament Mr English may occasionally stumble across a truth should not surprise us. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the people of New Zealand what other legislation this Government has passed that is so incomprehensible that the Minister cannot understand it and officials cannot understand it well enough to explain it to even the dimmest of Labour Ministers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One thing I can be sure of in that remark is that the intelligence curve for this Government ends about where National’s front bench starts—certainly in terms of understanding anything that I am aware of. But I am aware of legislation where judges frequently come to conclusions that are contrary to those that almost every member of Parliament has thought obtained in relation to legislation and subsequent amendment is required. And with this legislation there have been useful suggestions from Mr Finlayson that the Government has picked up. I look forward to discussing further with Mr Finlayson one aspect of his Supplementary Order Paper a little later in the afternoon. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports calling for the abolition of limits on anonymous donations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report arguing that the right to donate large sums of money in excess of $10000 in secret is as important to democracy as the secret ballot. This claim which came from Gerry Brownlee shows the real motivation for National’s opposition to this bill. It is so that large rich wealthy people can give lots of money anonymously to try to buy themselves a Government that will do things like putting accident compensation back into competition for example. 
John Key 
: If the legislation is so incomprehensible that the Minister of Justice cannot understand it officials cannot understand it well enough to explain it to the Minister of Justice Government departments cannot understand it the Electoral Commission cannot understand it and the Prime Minister thinks ordinary New Zealanders who want to try to understand it should consult a lawyer why on the back of all that is it being rushed through the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Actually it is not being rushed through the House. The member may notice—[ 
Interruption 
]—Well I know that some younger members are used to a kind of leisurely process of working around this place but I tell them that when the House is not working under urgency it is not being rushed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports to explain the contradiction of those people who complain that money cannot buy elections nevertheless wanting to have no cap on expenditure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member gets to the heart of the matter. What this bill is about—and everybody in this House understands what this bill is about—is stopping people from doing what happened in 2005 when a small cabal of wealthy people rorted the election law to try to buy themselves a National Government in order to bring on Armageddon and the end of the world. That was actually their aim in life amazing as it may seem. “Vote National for the end of the world” was the Exclusive Brethren’s purpose. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the point of order the fact that we cannot hear? Thank you. The Minister will please repeat in silence the essence of the answer please and no one is to interrupt. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that the essence of this argument is that people at the last election tried to buy themselves a Government by rorting the election law and the extraordinary thing was that the people who were trying to do that the most—the Exclusive Brethren—were trying to persuade people to vote for a National Government because that would actually have hastened the end of the world. 
John Key 
: What is better for the Government—having the old Minister of Justice Mark Burton who pretended he understood the legislation or the new Minister of Justice Annette King who has given up trying to pretend she understands it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have listened to a great deal of the exchanges in this House over the radio and I have noticed that the Minister of Justice has been ripping the Opposition to shreds. I look forward to more of that gentle care and attention; I advise the member just to open his mouth and let “Auntie Annette” pull his teeth out. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is so in touch with the electoral legislation that governs New Zealand can she just explain for a moment why she told the  
Holmes 
 interview this morning that the Electoral Act of 1956 is still in operation; and are there any other things that are 37 years out of date that she thinks still apply? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister was pointing out that certain features of the 1956 Electoral Act are still carried forward into the current electoral legislation and that is absolutely correct. If the member had not been out of New Zealand for so long he would know that fact. 
Economy—Transformation Planning 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports on plans to transform New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. Today I released plans to intensify work in six areas to achieve the next step change in this country’s economic transformation. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why has he chosen only six areas of focus and what are these areas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have chosen six not 16 or 26 because we wish to make good progress on a smaller number of key fronts. We will focus on improving broadband investment in sustainable technologies improved workplace skills supporting the internationalisation of our firms a better alignment of Government investment activity and making Auckland a world-class hub of innovation. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Interpretation of Clause 80(d) 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statements last night in relation to the interpretation of clause 80(d) of the Electoral Finance Bill that “We are not going to put it in law; the commission has asked for an interpretation.” and “I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; and I am prepared to listen to the debate on clause 80(d) so that Parliament’s interpretation on the clause will be made clear to the electoral agencies and that is all they ask. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister clarify that this is the situation: MPs need guidance on how they can comply with clause 80(d) the Electoral Commission asks for some clarity so it can give guidance to MPs the Minister says “Well I’m not going to change the law but here is my interpretation on it.” then next time she comes to Parliament says “Well I might be the Minister of Justice but my interpretation is now probably wrong.” and then says “Well Parliament can sit around and try to decide this for itself.”; and how does she think that helps the public or the MPs to have confidence in this law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I refer the member to the commentary that came back from the select committee which says that the committee considered recommending an amendment to clause 80(d) to provide guidance to the phrase “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” to clarify the kinds of activities intended. But as this phrase appears in a number of other statutes—it is widely used in a variety of contexts including parliamentary procedures—the committee did not do that but then went on to ask for the electoral agencies to provide that guidance. That guidance needs to be provided to the agencies from this House and that is what this debate is about—and we are in the debate right now. The member does not wish to participate but I did note that New Zealand First when it had a contribution to make decided it would participate. But then National has not wanted to engage in this bill right from the beginning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether she has reports that suggest that the complaint about which Mr English is so voluble is in fact an environment that MPs have lived under for decades now in one form or another and this is merely a 21st-century refinement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes that is correct. In fact clarification around the role of an MP acting in that role is something that the Electoral Commission has sought. I believe that this House could provide further clarification because we are the ones who actually go out to be members of Parliament day in day out 3 years around—we do not just do it for 2 years and sit at home in election year. I believe that this Parliament could provide that advice to the electoral agencies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it was her policy that MPs would be exempt from the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill and if it has been her policy that MPs should not be covered by it when they have been covered by it for decades then what kind of ridiculous situation is it when she cannot explain her own policy to the MPs of this House who are directly affected by the law; and how did she manage to rip her own credibility to shreds so quickly? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think what the public do appreciate is a Minister who is prepared to look at issues who is prepared to consult and who is not so arrogant as to stand up in Parliament and pretend to know everything. In the second reading debate I said it was my view. I never said it was the view of the Government. I said it was my view and that view is open to interpretation. I have asked for members to give their views and I would have thought that was what this Parliament was all about. 
Hon Bill English 
: What credibility would the Minister’s final decision on the meaning of this law—which applies to MPs—have when she has tried only once to give an interpretation of the many vague clauses in this bill; and the one time she has tried she has turned out to make a stupid interpretation which cannot work in practice and she has had to admit she is wrong and is now effectively handing it to the Opposition to decide? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly would not hand it to the Opposition to decide because it made a decision not to engage on this bill. I would say I have a lot more credibility than a member who said that he would participate in talks with other MPs around election spending and then when he thought he would get some headlines out of it he said he would not. The Electoral Commission chief executive Helena Catt has confirmed that National said that it would participate and now it will not. National members will not participate because they think the  
New Zealand Herald  
will give them another headline. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports that suggest that if Mr English had his way—treating candidates the same as sitting MPs—that would in effect paralyse the work of those MPs; yes or no? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have received a very confused report on what Mr English thinks and if one looked at his questions to my colleague yesterday in question time in Parliament one would not know where he stood because one moment he rails against what MPs do and the next minute he wants them to be able to do anything they like. I could not tell the member where Mr English stands on the issue. He has no idea. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Government agree with National’s longstanding position that MPs should not be exempt from the coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill and that for the last 3 months before an election the law should apply to MPs in exactly the same way as it applies to citizens and other community organisations—that is they cannot broadcast electoral advertisements? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the questioner has just outlined a position that has never ever been the National Party’s position. He is just articulating it now making it up as he goes along. [ 
Interruption 
] Come on; give us the date that National announced that policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I could certainly not confirm National’s latest position. It is not my job to do that but what I do know is that National members will not engage on this bill as long as they think they might get a few votes. But what they are getting is the public saying: “What this is all about? Why shouldn’t they not want to disclose what money they have to spend. They must want to have money and spend it and not tell the public about it.” 
Hon Bill English 
: So can the Minister confirm the circumstances as I understand them? She came to the House as Minister of Justice to give an interpretation of the legislation she then was forced to admit that that interpretation was wrong because it could not work in practice and she then said to the House: “Well I am here to listen to what the House thinks.” I have just told her what the House thinks which is to apply the law that exists and not to change it and she has just said that she will not take any notice of that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly did not say that. But I did notice last night that making up stories about what I have said was the agenda for the whole evening. Can I say to members opposite— 
John Key 
: This is your  
Hansard 
. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have my own  
Hansard 
 I thank Mr Key and he can have that one for nothing. I would suggest to Mr Key that he should look at Tony Ryall’s  
Hansard 
 and see the sort of rubbish that was being said about what I had said in the debate. I would say that all we heard last night was a lot of political rhetoric and very little substance. 
Hon Bill English 
: What chance does the New Zealand public have of complying with the law when this House has seen such a chaotic shambles over how the Government believes just one provision that applies to MPs should actually work in practice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no more confusion than when the last Electoral Reform Bill went through this House in 1993 when over eight pages of amendments were tabled by the then National Government and over 46 pages of amendments from the Opposition were put forward to try to fix up the problems with that bill. So I say to that member that he is crying crocodile tears because he certainly did not object to those amendments back then. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell the House precisely when she or—[ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please continue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well the temporary member from Te Atatu has something to say skulking as he does in the third row there as some sort of token representative. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Members who interject will obviously get responses so I ask people to keep their interjections to a minimum and to keep them relevant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister as to precisely when she or her predecessor in her position precisely was told of the National Party’s new position as articulated by Mr English in this House today and as flaunted all over the media unsuspecting as they are as to the truth of the matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say to the member that I cannot give any date when that new policy was announced but I do know that that member was a member of a National caucus and probably has more knowledge about what National’s policy is in this regard than most others would have. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister failed in her one attempt to provide interpretation for one provision of this bill and that she turned out to be wrong that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission has said that she does not understand it and that the one issue that the Minister tried to clarify has turned into a shambles where do members of the public and members of Parliament go to find out the meaning of the vague clauses in this legislation given that if they fail to comply they can be liable for $40000 fines and 2-year jail terms? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member distorts what the Electoral Commission said— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well the member raised it and I am answering this question. The Electoral Commission asked for clarification from this Parliament and that is what it will get if people engage in this debate in a meaningful way. But I suspect that all we will have is what we have had so far from the National Party which is hot air and a cover-up on what it wants to do at the next election. 
Television New Zealand—Maori Programming Commissioner 
5.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: He aha nga nekehanga whakamua kua oti i te whakatunga o te Mangai Whakatakoto Hotaka Maori na Te Reo Tataki o Aotearoa i panui i nga marama e toru ki muri hei wahanga o ta ratau kapa arahitanga whanui ake a i runga pea i te whakaaro ka mana ta ratau kawenata kia tino whai reo a ngai Maori i roto i nga mahi whakatakoto hotaka whakatakoto mahere hoki? 
[ 
What progress has been made in appointing the Maori programming commissioner which Television New Zealand announced three months ago as part of its broader leadership team and which presumably was intended to fulfil its charter obligations to ensure Maori participation in programmes and planning? 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Ka nui te mahi. However employment matters are an operational issue for the chief executive. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has put its Maori programming commissioner position on hold as a consequence of Te Mangai Paho’s decision to delay any further funding rounds until June 2008 and can he explain to the House why this unprecedented delay in television funding has occurred? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that the positions have been delayed while decisions are made by Television New Zealand as to the future of the Maori programming which does go to funding issues. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does an increase in the use of the Maori language outside Maori-specific shows such as  
Te Karere 
 and  
Marae 
 form part of TVNZ’s charter obligations and would the Minister agree that the shift of  
Te Karere 
 and  
Marae 
 to less popular timeslots shows TVNZ is paying only lip-service to its commitment under the charter to promote the Maori language? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In response to the last part of the member’s question I am advised by TVNZ that the screenings have increased from two to three times a day and in fact that there has been a 75 percent increase in programme reach as a result of that. 
Hone Harawira 
: If there is no new funding how will Maori Television be able to create and produce the new Maori language channel which is due to be launched in March of 2008? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly these funding issues are things that are being worked through at the moment. Priorities have to be set and there is a big debate about how much of the content should be on TVNZ and get a very broad spread how much should be on the first Maori channel and how much should be on the Maori language channel. That is something that gets worked through. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware that in August 2007 Maori Television recorded its highest ratings ever with a monthly cumulative audience of 767000 viewers and how does he suppose that Maori Television can satisfy its ever-increasing demand for programmes given that independent production companies will not be able to access any funding for new productions for at least another 6 months? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not accept that the assertion in the last part of the member’s question is necessarily correct but the member is right that the cumulative numbers are going very well. I am sure many members of this House are responsible for three or four of those viewings during that month. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Performance Management 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Who is accountable for the performance of the Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Under the Crown Entities Act 2004 and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 performance is the responsibility of the board itself. The board in turn is accountable to the Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise how pathetic it sounds to blame everyone else for the calamities at Wellington Hospital when he and his predecessor Labour Ministers have appointed the chairman the deputy chairman and the four board members and have had countless reports on how bad things are at Wellington Hospital and when it takes the death of a baby before this Government will do anything to fix the crisis at Wellington Hospital after 8 long years? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: By informing the public and the House of my concerns and by the fact that I am preparing to intervene at the Capital and Coast District Health Board it is quite clear that I take my responsibilities seriously. 
Lesley Soper 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the current Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. As members may be aware the chief executive resigned today with immediate effect. As I indicated in a media release yesterday the performance of the board raises a question as to what action now needs to be taken by me. I am considering a full range of options. An announcement will be made shortly. However in doing this I pay tribute to the hard-working and competent staff of the Capital and Coast District Health Board who are continuing to do their best for the people of Wellington in difficult circumstances. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister consider that making an example of one district health board will do anything to solve the operational problems throughout the health system caused by staff shortages; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member makes a good point. There are cross-cutting issues throughout the system and they need to be dealt with at a system-wide level. This particular district health board’s issues are being dealt with in a way appropriate to the circumstances of this district health board. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why should the  
Dominion Post 
—or any other individual or organisation for that matter—have to do battle for more than 2 years just to work out how many serious or fatal mishaps are occurring in the Capital and Coast District Health Board and will he under his watch finally lift the veil of secrecy surrounding hospital mishaps and implement the repeated recommendations of the Health Committee that all district health boards be required to report publicly and transparently each year on the medical mishaps occurring in their hospitals? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In fact many of the 23 cases reported today have already been widely publicised. Although there does needs to be transparency we also need to make sure that people will not hide their mistakes because of fear of media attention. That is why we have organisations and processes such as the Health and Disability Commissioner that report on events but leave out the names of people and organisations where appropriate. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister acknowledge that there have been problems within the Capital and Coast District Health Board its predecessor the Wellington Area Health Board and its predecessor the Wellington Hospital Board for at least two decades and that the problem is not one that will be resolved by rearranging the furniture but rather a much more fundamental change such as the immediate appointment of a commissioner to sort out Wellington Hospital’s problems is what is required? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I confirmed publicly yesterday I am taking advice on a wide range of options. As I repeated today I have not made a decision yet on any of them. The member has a point; deep-rooted systemic issues need a systemic fix. 
Heather Roy 
: How many more people have to die at Wellington’s killer hospital before the board with its head stuck in the sand will be sacked? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I imagine that ACT’s Wellington Central candidate to be is not expecting many votes from nurses or doctors in the region. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister in his answer may comment on what he likes—it does not bother us—but he is required to address a question. There was a question. There was no attempt to address it. ACT gets one question a day. I think the Minister could do us the courtesy of answering it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I ask the Minister to add to his answer. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify my answer. The essence of my response was as follows. In finding a way forward for the people of Wellington it is not sufficient to simply run down the hard-working and dedicated medical and support staff at this district health board. There are systems issues that will be resolved. In the meantime I suggest that all members of this House try their best to support the people who are trying to do good in our community. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does his earlier answer that the Capital and Coast District Health Board is to blame for everything fit with his predecessor’s undertaking that the buck stops with her and with his statement that he is “running this show” now when this is a Government that is happy to take the credit for any extra spending but when services fall over and people die it blames everybody else? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member may attempt to become the sand in this oyster but I am afraid the grain is too small. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify his answer. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: How much—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will be leaving the Chamber! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is not quite clear how much clarity members opposite would like but I am happy to say that I take extremely seriously my responsibilities under the two Acts that I have referred to today and members should judge me by the actions of the coming week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is not the action that this House is going to judge this Minister on the silly answer that he gave previously when the hospital in this country’s capital is under crisis? We have had report after report about people dying babies have died and this lot opposite appointed the board that has overseen the collapse of the hospital. He just gives some smart alec comment in the House when the hospital down the road is about to tip over. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Where in that series of words is the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct actually. I myself was struggling to find it. Would the member like to clarify what his question is as opposed to the statement he made? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When will the Minister demonstrate to the people of Wellington that he actually takes their concerns seriously? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister has not stopped taking seriously the concerns of the people of Wellington and every action that I take over the coming week will reflect that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Government take any responsibility for the fact that it has appointed over successive years in office the chairman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board the deputy chairman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board and four of the board members of the Capital and Coast District Health Board and for the fact that a number of the board members of the Capital and Coast District Health Board are on the Labour Party ticket yet this Minister says this Government has no responsibility for the fact that the hospital in this country’s capital is in crisis? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member just refuses to listen. I have already informed the member of the appropriate responsibilities of the board and of mine in its appointment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Any further supplementary questions? The member should call. Does the member want a supplementary question? I cannot hear over the noise; the member should call. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Does the Minister think the people of Wellington were misled by the previous board at the last election when it suppressed the damning quality report that warned that services were substandard and suppressed the shocking dossier of endless mismanagement at Wellington Hospital; why was the board not honest with the people of Wellington? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member uses presumptions in her question that probably do not bear scrutiny. In the first place the sentinel report was provided to the Ministry of Health which has been working on it. Many of the matters raised have been worked on by the Health and Disability Commissioner and were previously in the public domain. 
Prescriptions—Subsidies 
7.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any recent reports on subsidised medical prescriptions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Pharmac has recently announced that during 2006-07 close to 33 million prescriptions were subsidised which is a rise of 11.8 percent on the previous year. The Medical Director of Pharmac Dr Peter Moodie says that the biggest factor in this is the Government’s policy on access to primary care such as cheaper doctors’ visits and reduced co-payments. These policies reduce prescription charges to $3 a shot and have halved general practitioners’ fees. 
Lesley Soper 
: Are these desirable gains in primary care secure for the future? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Certainly not were the Opposition’s announced policies of basing general practice fees on market forces to be implemented. Many years of gain in primary health care would be reversed. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 At 2 o’clock today the Ministry for the Environment released a statement in the name of the chief executive Hugh Logan offering an apology to Erin Leigh for the fact that the material provided to the Acting Minister on 22 November in which Mr Logan claimed that Erin’s Leigh’s work was incompetent was totally wrong and stating that her media work was professional and of good quality. That renders the primary question on the sheet somewhat irrelevant. I am quite happy to ask it because we have numerous other supplementary questions and it is now clear that Mr Mallard did in fact mislead the House in a very serious way. So I seek leave of the House to ask a different question but one that is related to the topic. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes there is objection. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to make it clear that the statement issued today does not in any way say that the advice given was totally wrong. Those words are not in the statement. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to read the brief statement from Hugh Logan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assume now that the only course of action open to us is for me to go through the farce of asking the question on the sheet and then to deal with other matters in supplementary questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The decision is yours Mr Brownlee. 
State Services Commission—Inquiry into Curran Appointment 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by all the responses given on behalf of the Minister of State Services by the Hon Trevor Mallard to oral question No. 6 on 22 November 2007; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Mr Mallard based his answers on advice he was given. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the statement from Hugh Logan saying: “I am concerned that written material provided to the Minister in preparation for a question in the House led to a reflection on the work of Ms Erin Leigh in 2005-06 that was not intended by the ministry.”; if so how does she explain Trevor Mallard’s very explicit claim that six pieces of work by Ms Leigh demonstrated incompetence? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can explain it in this way. I have been advised by the State Services Commissioner today: “I have seen the information that the Minister used and I agree that the Minister’s comments were understandable. The basis for the comments can be found in the information.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she seen the comment of Hugh Logan saying that Erin Leigh’s work was professional and of good quality; if so how did Mr Mallard get it so wrong—was it a case of Mr Mallard reaching any conclusion he possibly could out of the information provided by the ministry in order to protect his colleague David Parker? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I realise the member has written out a number of questions but he ought to have listened to my answer because I have just told him that the State Services Commissioner has said today that he has seen the information the Minister used and he agrees that the Minister’s comments were understandable. The information the Minister received from the Ministry for the Environment came from Mr Hugh Logan and was given to the Minister. The State Services Commissioner has said that with the information the Minister used he agrees that the Minister’s comments were understandable and the basis for those comments can be found in that information. That says to the member that my colleague used the information he was given by the Ministry for the Environment. Mr Logan has also said that he did not intend the note to reflect on Ms Leigh’s performance but rather it was an attempt to explain some of the circumstances around her departure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect when that question was being answered there was a barrage from the back bench of the National Party particularly from the two Bennetts who sit side by side. They at no time kept quiet during the answers and people down here cannot hear them. Frankly if the National Party leadership fails to demonstrate any control over its back bench then you should throw those members out and give us a fair go in the House to hear what the debate is about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I am afraid the Bennetts are on their last warning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister of State Services saying to the House and the whole country that it is OK for Trevor Mallard to come into this House rip the career and reputation of Erin Leigh to bits and churn it through the mill by misinterpreting the information from Mr Hugh Logan and that that is OK because the State Services Commissioner says it is OK? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it was made clear that the information the Minister used—the information provided by the Ministry for the Environment to the Minister and which the Minister used—was the basis for the comments he made. The member is trying to turn this matter to his advantage rather than really caring about the reputation of Ms Leigh. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the information used by Mr Mallard been released into the public arena in its entirety; if not at whose request has it not been released and why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Ms Leigh is very happy for the statement that Mr Logan has made today to be released and I will table it at the end of the question because Mr Brownlee would like everyone to see it. It does not need to be read out; it will be tabled and the media and everybody can see it. But I do need to say that it was Ms Leigh who objected to the release of the original note; she said that was because it was damaging. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does that mean that the Minister responsible for this particular case is now criticising Ms Leigh for not releasing documents that are clearly defamatory? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am saying that Ms Leigh has every right to make that decision not to have the note released. I support her right to do that. As much as the member may want her to do that so he could make more political capital from it that is her decision to make not his. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming impossible to hear. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why has it taken 2 weeks for the truth behind Mr Mallard’s baseless allegations to come out and can we assume that this is another case of Mr Logan and Mr Prebble sitting quietly on their hands until it all got too hot just as they did in the case of David Benson-Pope and as they are doing in the case of David Parker? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Government require the Hon Trevor Mallard to make an apology to Erin Leigh for his mistake? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The Minister used information provided to him by Mr Hugh Logan the Secretary for the Environment. He used that information in good faith. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Government require the State Services Commissioner to apologise for comments that seem to bear out Mr Mallard’s judgment as read out by the Minister today? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am acting in my capacity as the Minister of Justice in relation to the inquiry that is currently under way. That question ought to be directed to the Minister of State Services. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on whether the Prime Minister has misled the House. Yesterday in answering questions to me in relation to this matter I asked the Prime Minister about the statements that Mr Mallard had made. Firstly she said she had read the  
Hansard 
 and she considered the statements Mr Mallard had made to be rather mild by his standards. We now know of course that Mr Logan was in the process of preparing the statement he released today. We now know that whatever interpretation the Government wants to put on it Miss Leigh has been defamed. That is quite clearly the case. The Prime Minister said in answer to a further question: “I have no evidence that anyone is being defamed”. Quite clearly yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister would have been well aware that someone was being defamed and that someone had been defamed. That person is Erin Leigh. 
I put it to you Madam Speaker that the Prime Minister of New Zealand would have been fully aware of that situation. She would have had that knowledge when she came down to the House and she has misled the House. So indeed has Mr Mallard who quite clearly now knows that he has defamed Miss Leigh. 
Finally Madam Speaker I say maybe that would go towards answering the question of why when I asked them yesterday neither Mr Mallard nor the Prime Minister would repeat those statements outside the House—they have not done that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the fact that the member is raising an issue of privilege this is not the way to raise it. He should have been here long enough by now to know that. But secondly we are now getting into  
Alice Through the Looking Glass 
 territory. What is being argued here is that Mr Mallard basing his answer on information given to him by the head of his ministry gave an answer in conformity with that information. That information may have been wrong. Mr Logan may have got his facts wrong but Mr Mallard was entitled to give an answer. The Prime Minister gave an answer yesterday based on the information available at that point. Mr Logan made a statement this afternoon. To the best of my knowledge that information was not available to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. Even this Prime Minister is not as prescient as that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a matter of privilege and this is not the appropriate way to raise it. There is another way to do so and if the member wishes to raise it he should do so appropriately. It is certainly not for the Speaker to judge the accuracy of members’ statements in this House; otherwise there would be no end to it. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just in relation to the earlier point of order I raised I wonder whether the Government will be advising us then on at exactly which point the Prime Minister was aware of the briefing note Mr Logan was putting out and the statement he intended to put out. I go back Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I do not want to interrupt the member but that is not a point of order. We are now getting into debating matters. They are not points of order. I have ruled on that. There is a process in which to raise these matters. All members know that and they should follow the correct procedure please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are a couple of things worth noting in this. The first thing is that Mr Logan’s statement today makes it clear that Ms Leigh notified the ministry that she was ending her contract and ceasing to work for it. The implications given to the House by Mr Mallard were that her work was not of a sufficient standard and that therefore she had to be replaced. That is quite a different matter. In any event it means that the House has been misled. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I do not want to interrupt the member but I do not know how many times I can say this. This is a matter of privilege. There is a process to follow. This is not the process. I do not want to hear any more points of order on this particular point. There is nothing more to be said. I am happy to receive communications from members in the appropriate way. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the statement made by Hugh Logan the Secretary for the Environment at 2 p.m. today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Volunteers—Contribution 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What statistics has he received regarding the contribution to New Zealand made by volunteers? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Today is International Volunteer Day. It is an opportunity to honour and thank those Kiwis who give tirelessly of their time to our community. Statistics New Zealand is committed to recognising the part volunteers play in New Zealand life and has today released statistics about unpaid work. This information shows that 89 percent of people aged 15 years and over undertook some form of unpaid work. In addition this year Statistics New Zealand has for the first time been able to provide extra information on the over 1 million volunteers who on average spend 5.1 hours each week volunteering in our community. 
Darien Fenton 
: How do these reported measures recognise the contribution of volunteers to New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The new Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account launched in August can now measure the value of the combined 270 million hours of volunteer time as being worth over $3.3 billion. This translates to the equivalent of 4.9 percent of GDP and demonstrates beyond question how reliant we are on volunteers in the community. So it is a great day to say thank you to all of them. 
Land Transport New Zealand—Confidence in Board 
10.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does she have confidence in the board of Land Transport New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How can a Minister have confidence in a board that finished the last financial year with $224 million of unspent land transport funding which was in error by over 1000 percent on what it had budgeted for? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because every dollar of that money has been allocated to projects around New Zealand—projects that members in this House want to see done. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It is not spent; it’s not happening. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although the money is not spent at this time it has been allocated to projects. It will be spent. I compare that with that member’s record where year after year the Government funding agency posted a deficit—in other words it spent money it did not have. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does it say about the funding process that Land Transport New Zealand adopts when in an area like the Bay of Plenty for example a whopping $26 million of money has not been spent; and does that mean that there are simply no roading problems in the Bay of Plenty that qualify for the money? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It certainly does not mean that and they will get the money. It means that the projects were not ready to be done in the financial year in which the money was voted. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Whoo-hoo! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The good news for Mr Clarkson—and probably more so for Mr Peters who will get the benefit of it—is that that money will be spent in the Bay of Plenty. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why is the Minister at present trying to put legislation through this Parliament that will allow regions to increase the regional petrol tax by 10c when in fact Land Transport New Zealand now has amassed a surplus of $329 million in cash alone that it cannot spend? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because that money is allocated to projects around New Zealand and those regions are entitled to the money. The regional fuel tax is for projects that particular regions want over and above the money in the Land Transport Fund. People in the rest of New Zealand say that it is fair enough that there is a regional petrol tax in Auckland for it to pay for its electrification. Why should Southland Christchurch Wellington or other parts of New Zealand pay for a project that is not in their region and that is outside the money already allocated on a fair basis? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I repeat my question: how can the public have any confidence in a Government that is putting legislation through to increase further the petrol tax when Land Transport New Zealand’s annual report shows that it has amassed in cash and in investment assets a whopping sum of $329 million of unspent money—cash and investment assets of $329 million—which would buy eight Kopu bridges or five Warkworth bypasses neither of which are on the 10-year radar for land transport spending? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In terms of expenditure in transport that sum is a matter of weeks of expenditure actually. I need to say to the member that in terms of the Government funding agency there have been surpluses and deficits in relation to that account going back for years. For example when he was Minister there was a $68 million surplus in 1996-97 and when that is compared with the little amount the National Government spent on land transport at that stage it was a large amount. Of course we never heard a word about it then so what we are hearing from this member today in my view is just hype. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why has the Minister reappointed members of the board of Land Transport New Zealand to the establishment board of the new transport agency when they have clearly demonstrated that they are totally incompetent and unable to run a portfolio like land transport? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that that is a very insulting comment. Board members have shown that they are able to manage billions of dollars and build transport infrastructure around New Zealand mainly because they have been given the money to do it. Secondly they have been prepared to spend billions not a few hundred million. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No they haven’t. They haven’t spent it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They will spend that money and they will spend it in the regions. Already they have projects for the next financial year from those regions. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s what they said last year. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say to that member when he comes in with a question like that: “Do your homework.” He should do his homework and look at his own record. Most of the time the member ran a deficit so he spent money he did not have. Then he ran a surplus but that was not worth mentioning. 
Rail Network—Renationalisation 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Under what circumstances would the Government fully or partly renationalise the operation of the trains run by Toll Holdings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If the result of the continuing negotiations with Toll showed that this was the only satisfactory way to achieve a strong efficient rail transport network. 
Peter Brown 
: Notwithstanding that Toll has won awards for innovation and efficiency does the Minister recognise that if rail were publicly owned it could open the door to all sorts of innovative practices that occur in railway services in some other countries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s aim is to have a strong efficient rail transport network and it needs certainty around the ongoing situation. We have never had a settled implementation of the National Rail Access Agreement. Within weeks almost of that being finalised Toll was attempting to relitigate. Indeed I think it is fair to say that the view around what Toll is worth is largely based on the extent to which it is assumed that the Government will actually implement the National Rail Access Agreement. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that with public ownership it would be possible to lease part of the rail services out either in the long term or the short term; introduce rail freight grants as occurs elsewhere; and indeed allow bus or other operators to operate trains for a particular event—in short is he aware that public ownership could really bring our rail services into the 21st century? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said the Government hopes to achieve a strong efficient rail transport network and as I have confirmed all options are on the table in order to achieve that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Dominion  
of 21 July 1993 where the National Party sold off New Zealand Rail to its mates without any— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Police Management—Confidence 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she have confidence in police management; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes; I am confident that police management are providing leadership and direction and where areas requiring improvement are identified are taking action to address those areas. 
Simon Power 
: Is it acceptable that an offender who absconded while on home detention and had a warrant out for his arrest tried to hand himself into a police station a week later but was told to go away because he was not on the computer only to allegedly brutally assault an 83-year-old woman a month later? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not. 
Simon Power 
: Does she have confidence in the 111 emergency system when it took four calls for police to respond to two distressed teenage girls who had run to a nearby house after being held against their will by King Cobra gang members only for the patrol car to turn up an hour later and after the girls had resorted to escaping by taxi? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am always saddened to hear stories where there has been a failure in the 111 system but I say to the member that huge improvements have been made in the 111 system since the review that was undertaken by my predecessor George Hawkins. With the investment in terms of funding and staff that has gone into it we now see a much-improved service from the 111 call line. It is unacceptable when it does not work but there are times when errors are made. 
Simon Power 
: Is she concerned that police have claimed that they were not aware of warrants to arrest Graeme Burton until 3 January this year when they failed to pick up the two warrants issued on 22 December last year and then failed to act on the warrant to recall Burton issued on 29 December that had been hand-delivered to the Wellington Central Police Station? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes and the police advise me that they recognise there are some failings in the current systems associated with the transfer of information between agencies. These issues are being addressed by the police and the agencies and I believe they will ensure this is not something that will happen in the future. 
Simon Power 
: Why did police refuse to provide affidavits to back up their claims to the Department of Corrections about Burton’s criminal activities while on parole when they already had sufficient evidence to raid his house at the end of November when it is the Parole Board that decides whether there are sufficient grounds for recall on the basis of whether he posed a risk to public safety rather than whether he had committed any crimes? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am unable to provide the member with that answer. I would need to ask the police why they did not provide those affidavits and I am happy to do that for the member. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to turn your attention to Speaker’s ruling 157/6. There are a number of things in this House that have developed over a period of time and become the conventions of the House. One of the conventions that I have always understood for all the time I have been here is that when a Minister makes a mistake in an answer he or she at the first opportunity comes to the House and uses the provisions of the personal explanation procedure to make a correction in order that the House is not misled. The earliest opportunity that Trevor Mallard would have had to correct this matter was yesterday. Given his failure to do so I assume—given your comments before—that your advice to us would be that we have no alternative other than to bring a privilege charge against Mr Mallard. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member made an assertion in that statement that is factually incorrect to the best of my knowledge. He seems to have assumed that Mr Mallard was aware of what was going to be said by Mr Logan yesterday. There is no evidence for that at this point at all. I might also say that Ministers give answers on the basis of the information available to them. If one is required to come to the House to make a correction if some considerable time later information comes to hand that suggests the answer was incorrect one could end up rather endlessly coming to the House to make corrections. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I do not want this matter pursued. This is precisely why the appropriate procedure is to refer the matter to me in writing so that it can be fully investigated—so that we do not get into this kind of debate which cannot be resolved here. The member of course if he wishes is free to do so. 
Questions to Members 
Corrections Department—Financial Review 2006-07 
1.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: When does the committee expect to report on the 2006-07 financial review of the Department of Corrections? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 The committee is in the final stages of its consideration of the 2006-07 financial review of the Department of Corrections and we expect to report back to the House very soon. 
Simon Power 
: When is the committee scheduled to make a decision on whether to support an inquiry into the Department of Corrections now that it has a fairly light work programme as it has postponed it numerous times since I first put it on the agenda in January 2006? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: That issue is currently before the committee. I cannot comment on proceedings that are still before the committee and are thus confidential. 
Simon Power 
: Perhaps I could help. I seek leave to table a media statement of today’s date from the committee advising that the matter of an inquiry into the Department of Corrections will be further considered on 20 February 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Monetary Policy Framework—Progress 
2.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What progress has been made on the inquiry into the future monetary policy framework? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the committee has made sound progress on this inquiry. We have completed hearings. We heard from a wide range of interested parties and experts on matters relating to the inquiry. We have also spent time with our advisers to plan the timetable for considering the evidence and the issues raised during the hearings. The committee is optimistic that it will be able to complete its consideration of the inquiry by March 2008. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can he confirm under the terms of reference requiring the committee to examine the role of productivity that official statistics received by the committee show that growth in both labour and multi-factor productivity since 2000 has fallen to less than half that achieved from 1990 to 2000 limiting the economy’s potential for non-inflationary growth under Labour’s policies— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that would seem to be a matter for the committee. The member may answer about process matters but not matters of substance. I will give the member one more go to ask his supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question related specifically to the terms of reference of the inquiry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But it is before the committee and I think it is a marginal call. I am happy to let you have another go but we do not want to get into matters that are before the committee and we do not want the chair to be asked to make a comment on matters that are inappropriate. But the member may have another supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was very carefully worded because I did not mention information that only the committee has. You will note that I referred to official statistics that the committee has and those are official public figures. So I am not asking the member to comment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the member address that question without going into the considerations of the committee. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I cannot confirm the matter that the member has adverted to. What I can confirm is that the material received by the committee on that question indicates that the evidence on it to date is inconclusive. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official statistics that show exactly what I said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Child Cancer Services 
3.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: Has the committee been briefed by the Capital and Coast District Health Board on what steps it is taking with regard to child cancer services in Wellington; if so when is the committee expected to report to the House? 
SUE KEDGLEY (Chairperson of the Health Committee): 
 Yes the Health Committee has been briefed by the Capital and Coast District Health Board and I am hopeful that the committee will be able to report to the House as soon as possible and in the very near future but obviously as the member well knows that is a matter for the committee to decide. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the committee intend to call any other witnesses for this inquiry and will the parents of child cancer patients have the chance to appear before the committee to tell their stories about their experiences at the Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: As the member well knows I cannot reveal what the committee is doing before it has deliberated upon the matter so I cannot answer the question as to whether we will be calling further evidence at this stage. 
Housing Affordability—Inquiry 
4.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s inquiry into housing affordability in New Zealand? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee) 
: 
 The committee has made good progress with this inquiry having heard from 41 submitters between May and November with another nine or more to be heard towards the end of this year and going into next year. There has been general acknowledgment amongst submitters that two main factors are influencing housing costs. The first is the escalating value of land and the second is the cost and time spent working through the Resource Management Act and Building Act hurdles in order to build on that land. It further points to two main factors preventing young people from buying houses in such a costly environment—those are relatively low take-home pay and interest rates that are now the highest in the Western World. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the committee received any Government reports confirming the general observation of submitters that land costs and regulatory costs are driving up house prices? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The committee has received a report entitled  
Housing Supply in the Auckland Region 2000-2005. 
 It was prepared for the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Department of Building and Housing and states: “A number of factors have constrained supply. One of these has been a limited supply of land. Another contributor has been difficulties in the consent process especially its time consuming nature; … The RMA process”—the Government’s own report says—“needs to be revamped …”. However I have not seen any Government reports stating the Government will address land supply issues compliance or consent costs help get interest rates under control or for that matter improve take-home pay for young New Zealanders. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—State of Health Services 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Heather Roy seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the state of health services at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. In her letter the member refers to the resignation of the chief executive and information regarding events that have occurred. The chief executive’s resignation has been signalled for some time and the outcome of these reported events is unclear. No decisions have yet been made. This is not a particular case of recent occurrence and cannot give grounds to a debate. Furthermore as I said yesterday there are other opportunities to consider the performance of district health boards. The financial review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board is currently before the Health Committee and there is a general debate today. The application is declined. 
General Debate 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. At 2 o’clock today Hugh Logan dropped the bombshell the Government did not want to hear but knew was coming: Trevor Mallard was wrong. You see Trevor Mallard had used parliamentary privilege to defame Erin Leigh. Trevor Mallard would not make those statements outside the House and the Prime Minister would not make those statements outside the House because they knew they would be sued. They knew they were wrong and it was all part of a strategy dreamt up by the Labour Government to nail Erin Leigh. 
We are here debating the Electoral Finance Bill but that is part of the Labour Government’s wider agenda to turn Government departments into an extension of itself and in an election year to use the resources of those departments to curry favour for Labour. So having Labour Party lackeys working for Government departments in the communications area was all part of the strategy for Labour. That is why Madeleine Setchell’s face did not fit and that is why Erin Leigh’s face did not fit. Trevor Mallard Michael Cullen Helen Clark and the “party of the workers” did not care if Trevor Mallard came down to this House defamed Erin Leigh and wrecked her career because they are bigger than the people of New Zealand. 
That is the answer from Labour—it is bigger than the people of New Zealand and to hell with any New Zealander who gets in front of it or who challenges this Labour Government. It is no wonder people are scared to stand up to Labour because the bully-boy tactics have been going on for 8 years. Trevor Mallard the little puppy who looked down the camera and said to New Zealanders “Forgive me forgive me because I punched Tau Henare. I was under stress and all was not going well.” is now pleading not guilty. This is the same guy who at the very first opportunity he had came to this House and defamed Erin Leigh to the point that she cannot get a job now. Yesterday this is what the Prime Minister of New Zealand had to say about that behaviour: “It was rather mild by Trevor’s standards.” You see it was— 
Hon Member 
: He didn’t beat her up. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right; he did not actually punch her physically. That is what he normally does. He just punched her verbally. He punched her verbally so that she could not get a job. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What does Gerry do to pensioners? 
JOHN KEY 
: Oh that is the outgoing member for Otaki—the son Helen Clark never had according to Helen Clark. That is how that member described himself in the  
Independent 
. Will he be the son Helen Clark never had looking for a job in Otaki in about 12 months’ time? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Cut that stuff out. You’re a coward and a braggart. 
JOHN KEY 
: But this is the situation. Michael Cullen stands for a Government that wants to bully people and defame them. Its members will not make those comments outside and he knows it. He came into this House and he was better than that. Michael Cullen was better than that when he came into this House. He stood up for the rights of workers. He stood up for the right of people to go out there and talk against the Government. He stood up for the right to be better but he has lost the plot. You see he is so consumed with power that he does not care who gets in the way. Those members are all quiet except for Michael Cullen. He is the last man standing and trying to defend the Government and the rest of them are in shame because they cannot believe that they are treating their own workers this way. They cannot believe that Michael Cullen is the only one talking. 
He is the only one who is prepared to try to defend Trevor Mallard. That is the situation. Trevor Mallard came to this House he defamed Erin Leigh and he was wrong. He was wrong and he will not make those comments outside the House because we know that. 
What a disastrous end for a Labour Government this is. We are here going out there passing electoral finance legislation from a Labour Government that its own members do not understand that officials do not understand and that the country does not want but Labour members are bigger than the ordinary New Zealander! They are doing this on the basis that they do not care that thousands and thousands of New Zealanders are feeling the way that Erin Leigh feels today. She has been monstered by Trevor Mallard and it is wrong. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of that speech but this is the second day in a row that that member has dragged the personal lives relatives or characteristics of members on this side into the debate. He did it yesterday with my wife against all conventions in this House and today he did it again in relation to the Prime Minister. I think he needs to be reminded that there are limits on those matters or that will come back on members opposite and many of them are exposed in that respect. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I think it is a bit rich for the Deputy Prime Minister to make that statement when the statement I mentioned was the statement that Mr Hughes had used to describe himself in the  
Independent 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. It is a debatable issue. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a point of order on the floor. It will be heard in silence. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am speaking to the point of order raised by Mr Key. I have never described myself in that way; it was written about me by a journalist. Members opposite have lots of things written about them that I am sure they do not take ownership of. They have quite a few embarrassing things particularly in the case of the member who raised the point of order. But to assert that I said that about myself is not correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would just say that all members in this House are honourable members. Their word is their bond. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a point of order on the floor. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly we accept the comments made by the Hon Darren Hughes and we understand why he has made them. But I would also suggest—[ 
Interruption 
] Well he has; he felt aggrieved. You should also be aware Mr Assistant Speaker that although the Labour members got a bit wound up because of the close-to-the-bone and I think issues-focused speech from John Key there was through that time a barrage coming towards him from the Deputy Prime Minister during which a number of unparliamentary things were said. I think that if we are to be looking at any sort of pointing the finger here then people need to understand that this is a robust House. There will be debate. If there was misunderstanding over the comments made by Mr Key because of a misreporting about Mr Hughes then I do not think that that really was sufficient to justify the sorts of comments that the Deputy Prime Minister was making about Mr Key. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yesterday I was out of the House when the Leader of the Opposition dragged my wife into the debate. That is a complete breach of every convention in this House. It was the action of a person whom I described by interjection as a scumbag and if I am required to apologise I will do so. But when the member today compounds that by then referring to the Prime Minister in that way that is unforgivable and members opposite will get retaliation for that kind of behaviour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. By and large these things happen through frustration and that is understood but often they are out of order in being personal reflections. I refer members to Standing Order 116 and Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7. It can lead to disorder. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 If anyone has lost the plot it is John Key and it was in the House today. There slipped the nice guy mask there he exposed himself as a common or garden politician attacking people personally for their relationships and what they did. If Mr Key wants to talk about people appearing in court for assault then he should look to his left to Gerry Brownlee who lost a civil assault case in court and was convicted of that offence. Let us not have any of Mr Key’s double standards. If Mr Key and the National Party look a little angry at the moment and it has something to do with the Electoral Finance Bill it is because that party and Mr Key got caught out at the last election by having been supported by narrow sectoral religious groups and right-wing vested interests that did not have the guts to say publicly that they were supporting National. 
Mr Key knew there was $1 million coming from the Exclusive Brethren. He appeared on television talking to them. He was told about it—he was emailed. Here is the email Ron Hickmott sent to Mr Key headed “Urgent important and confidential” the email that Mr Key said he never read. What did it say? It said that the Exclusive Brethren sought to launch a “very extensive election campaign” using $1 million “with the sole goal of getting party votes for National”. Mr Key knew about the Exclusive Brethren. He knew about the $1 million. He went on television and he denied that. That was untrue; that was dishonest. Why did the National Party get hundreds of thousands of dollars through trust funds? It got hundreds of thousands of dollars through trust funds because the wealthy vested interests that were buying privileges in the hope that National would get elected were not prepared to be transparent about the fact they were giving that money to the National Party. So if the National Party is angry it is because it knows this bill restores democracy by stopping that sort of vote-buying tactic from narrow unrepresentative religious groups and narrow sectoral right-wing business interests. 
If Mr Key is angry it is because of his botch-up about the DVD where he breached copyright. That was bad enough but then he denied responsibility for it. Mr Key who approved the DVD saw the DVD and heard the DVD said it was the fault of his staff. Then he said it was the production company’s fault. We recall that last time when Mr Key last breached the Electoral Act by spending $100000 more on advertising than National had declared because he did not include GST he said it was the company’s fault. I say to Mr Key that it is always somebody else’s fault. Mr Key should listen to his own advice which he gave in May of this year: “The temptation is to blame anyone but yourself for your situation. That kind of attitude is self-defeating and it won’t solve your problems.” Mr Key should listen to his own advice. He said that he recalled the DVD immediately. The news about the DVD was out on Friday. Friday went by Saturday went by Sunday went by and on Monday Mr Key withdrew the DVDs not as he says because of his high standards but because he got a lawyer’s letter and the DVD was going to cost the National Party hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was dishonest too I say to Mr Key. He should have come clean. He should not have tried to cover it up. 
National members should be grateful that the DVD was withdrawn; it was such a shallow and vacuous piece of material. Here it is in my hand illegal though it is. What did John Armstrong say about this DVD? He said it “manages to make National’s leader look about as deep as one of ‘The Stepford Wives’.”—as deep as one of the Stepford wives! Then there is Fran O’Sullivan. Fran O’Sullivan is no enemy of the National Party—she largely speaks in favour of it. What did she say about this DVD? She said: “I downloaded it from the National Party website and I found myself cringing at the artificiality of 12 minutes of staged intimacy.” The National Party has egg all over its face. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 That was really a work-up was it not? That was really a work-up by Phil Goff. But let us just mention the one sentence he said that I think is completely apposite to the Government today. He said: “Blame anyone but yourself.” Here we have the headlines about Wellington Hospital: “Dysfunction mistrust morale at rock bottom” and “Hospital crises” and what does the Minister of Health limply say about who is responsible for this? He says: “Oh it’s all the board.” But he does not admit that the failed Minister of Health Annette King appointed half the board of the Capital and Coast District Health Board for the last 6 years. Her hand-picked flunkies have been running that hospital for over 6 years. They have been running it down into the ground and now we have report after report about how people are dying because of the way that the Government is administering the public hospital. 
Patient after patient is revealed in the paper today as having died because of a hospital that cannot provide decent services to the people of New Zealand. A man lost his life because he was sent home from the emergency department three times despite the fact that he had life-threatening pneumonia. What about the man who could not get an X-ray and subsequently died within hours? What about the people who died because of surgery delays at Wellington Hospital? There has been nothing from this Minister except some sort of pathetic comment about oysters and sand. That is all we got from him. 
Labour used to be the party that said it stood for the public health system and for ordinary New Zealanders getting a quality health system. How the hell do Labour members explain the front page of the Rotorua  
Daily Post 
 today which says that patients within days of having surgery had to scrub the toilets in the hospital during the weekend? How do they explain that? In Rotorua surgical patients disgusted with hygiene standards at Rotorua Hospital have resorted to cleaning the toilets themselves. 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s their fault. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Do members know whose fault it is? It is the patients’ fault for being there. That is what Government members say—it is the patients’ fault for being there. 
In a New Zealand public hospital the patients are resorting to cleaning the toilets because this Government wants to spend the money on 10000 bureaucrats. That is what this Government is doing to the public health system and not one of the Government members takes any accountability. Annette King repeatedly appointed her mates people completely bereft of any skill whatsoever to the board of Capital and Coast District Health Board and to district health boards around the country. Things have turned into a mess and there is no accountability from that woman for what she has done to the people of Wellington or for what she is now doing to the people of Rotorua. 
How can the Labour Party stand proud as the defender of the public health system when in Rotorua patients recovering from surgery 2 days earlier are finding scrubbing brushes and rubber gloves and are cleaning the toilets themselves? This is happening in a New Zealand public hospital under Labour. What do the patients say? I could not sum it up better myself. They say: “We can’t blame the nurses. Where is all the money going that Prime Minister Helen Clark says they are putting into hospitals?”. Well I will tell members where it is going. It is going into 10000 bureaucrats—there will be 10000 bureaucrats by the time of the election. 
This Government has employed two bureaucrats for every extra doctor in the health system. It has employed two health bureaucrats for every extra doctor working in our hospitals. That is the record of the Labour Party in the health system. With $5 billion extra spent on health there have been fewer people getting elective surgery emergency departments are turning patients away and now in Rotorua patients are being forced to clean the public hospital toilets themselves within days of having surgery. Within days of having surgery they are having to clean the hospital toilets themselves. And this Government wonders why disease is being passed around our hospitals and why we are closing hospital wards up and down the country to deal with methicillin-resistant  
Staphylococcus aureus 
. Labour is failing the public health system. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 When the Minister of Health stood up to answer questions in Parliament today those answers could best be described only as extraordinarily arrogant flippant and for the most part totally irrelevant. Quite what oysters have to do with Wellington Hospital I do not know but I suspect they have never been on the menu there or anywhere else in the public health system. 
Instead of answering questions and actually being up front with what exactly has gone on at Wellington Hospital over the past 7 years the Minister resorted to personal attacks on me. Well I have thicker skin than that I say to the Minister. Personal attacks will do nothing not one single thing to address any of the problems that Wellington Hospital is afflicted with at the moment. The Minister has just revealed that he is totally out of touch with everything that is going on in the health sector. 
The Minister then went on to try to pretend that he is the friend of the hard-working doctors nurses and health professionals who are beavering away at the coalface at Wellington Hospital and of those employed at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. Those people are not fooled for one moment. I suspect that I have spoken to dozens more doctors and nurses than the Minister has in the last week. If he really cared about what is happening at Wellington Hospital then he would have investigated the budget. He would have looked at where the money is being spent and at where it is not going. He would have picked up that a terrible dissociation has developed between the management and the clinical staff. The rift is so great that neither the clinicians nor the management actually have any confidence in each other. There is a great deal of mistrust. That is reflected in the drop in confidence that the people of Wellington have had about their public health service. For the Minister to totally ignore those things shows just how out of touch he is. 
Minister Cunliffe—the self-professed socialist who can count—obviously has not bothered to count how many people are on waiting lists at Wellington Hospital. He obviously has not bothered to count the dollars being spent not only at the Capital and Coast District Health Board but also elsewhere around the country and I suspect that that is because he cannot count. I think he has been very slow to come up to speed with his new portfolio. He has been extraordinarily slow to act. He cannot decide. The reason we are to get an announcement some time in the next week is that he cannot actually decide what he is going to do with this issue which is proving to be a huge embarrassment for the Government. 
What needs to happen is very clear. A commissioner should have been put in place years ago. At the very least the Minister should be announcing today that an independent commissioner will be put in place to deal with the problems that exist. That person has to be independent has to have a proven track record of turning organisations around and has to be able to think outside the square because innovative ideas and a brave approach is needed at this district health board which is in terminal crisis. 
The Minister is quite right; the hard-working doctors nurses and health professionals need support and they need it immediately. They need it from him. He who is aggregating responsibility for the crisis we are currently experiencing is doing no favours for these hard-working health professionals. There is talk of the Minister again just putting a few of his cronies into the appointed positions at the district health board. The membership of the district health boards changes over next week on 10 December. If all the Minister is to do is ministerial namby-pamby tinkering then that will solve absolutely nothing and Wellingtonians will be able to look forward only to more of the same. 
The Minister never answered the question I asked him in Parliament today. I asked him how many more people needed to die at Wellington Hospital before he would consider sacking the board doing the right thing and putting in place an independent commissioner who could tackle the real issues. There must be no political interference with this independent commissioner. We should forget the meddling that has gone on by the Ministry of Health and the Minister’s office with the 21 district health boards up and down the length and breadth of this country. There should be no political interference. The commissioner needs to be able to have a free rein to put in a team of his or her own with confidence in order to change the culture at Wellington Hospital. 
The commissioner should first address the financial statements that have been of huge concern since the district health board was put in place in 2001 and then deal with the culture that exists at Wellington Hospital. Anybody working at Wellington Hospital will say freely that it is a very unhappy place to be working in. People tell me that freely. Once upon a time they tried to cover that up but it is an extraordinarily unhappy place and the sooner a commissioner is put in place the better. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I start my contribution to the general debate this afternoon by offering my congratulations to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard the new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. They are from the Australian Labor Party which has stormed to victory and to a pretty comprehensive win for a new Government for Australia. It has been interesting to watch what has been happening in Australia in recent times because a lot is mentioned about it in our media and politics. The thing that strikes me most about what has happened in Australia is that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard won office on the policies that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have been implementing here in New Zealand. You know for a long time there was a group of workers in Australia who voted for the previous Government. It was not until that Government went to the right and to the style of the Employment Contracts Act of National in New Zealand that those people—who were known as the “Howard battlers”—moved over and voted for a Labor Government. 
I congratulate Kevin Rudd on the stand he has taken on climate change. He has adopted a clear policy—just like New Zealand Labour has adopted. His opponent was a last-minute convert to the climate change challenge just as we have a half-hearted effort from the parliamentary Opposition here in New Zealand in that regard as well. Of course Kevin Rudd supports Helen Clark’s stand against the war in Iraq and in not committing troops into that combat zone just as we have done in New Zealand. I congratulate Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard on the work they will do in Australia. 
The other thing I think is interesting about Australian politics is the way in which a certain style has been allowed to enter the conservative side of politics which is most easily illustrated by the activities of the Exclusive Brethren Church. We are debating that in Parliament at the moment with the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill. It is a bill about which the National Opposition basically alone in Parliament is causing all sorts of outrage and false crocodile tears with its stand against it. The bill has been introduced because the book  
The Hollow Men 
 exposed behaviour at the last election that not one National MP opposite will say he or she is proud of. 
Anne Tolley 
: It’s a work of fiction. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mrs Tolley knows it is not. She knows that basically it is an encyclopaedia. Does she deny that the emails and the footnotes in the back of that book are true? 
Anne Tolley 
: It’s a work of fiction. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I hope National members keep up this approach through the rest of the afternoon and week because that book puts out absolutely clearly why electoral finance reform is needed in this country. It is why not one of the speeches of bluster we have heard from Mr English and his cronies has gone any way to try to defend what the National Party did in 2005 when its campaign was basically run by the Exclusive Brethren Church. It is why the National Party has not offered one word of defence for the way Bill English ran the campaign in 2002 when National’s election campaign was basically funded by Parliamentary Service. That is a point he has never denied in Parliament and a point he never refers to in debating the Electoral Finance Bill. So let us have just a little bit less of the moral outrage from that side of the House in that regard. 
Something they should feel morally outraged about is the DVD that was going to be the great circuit-breaker for John Key. We found out that he is ambitious for New Zealand. One of the members of Parliament in this Chamber whom I dislike the most is Tony Ryall. He is just a mean nasty person—but I think he is ambitious for New Zealand. I do not deny for a minute that he is an ambitious person for our country—I mean that as a compliment incidentally—I have not met a single member of Parliament who is not ambitious for New Zealand. We are all in that state. 
I put on the DVD and tried to watch it for 13 minutes which felt like a lifetime—trying to work out how John Key was differently ambitious for New Zealand from the rest of us. There was not a single answer on the DVD. But I am glad they chose the DVD because DVDs are interesting things. They are all shiny but hollow at the core. That reminds me a lot of the Leader of the Opposition. While I was watching the DVD I thought that if I were John Key and I knew that people thought I was all style and no substance and I put out a DVD I would try to counter that claim by packing it full of policy. But John Key did not put one thing on there because the policies that National has released are all desperately unpopular. 
Tony Ryall’s health discussion document—the only discussion document National members do not want us to talk about—puts up general practitioner fees for New Zealanders accessing primary health care. Bill English’s State-owned enterprises policy is the one whereby he partially privatises the family silver. National members do not want to talk about that. Those two policies were not on the DVD either. The other policy National had was about the war in Iraq. That was not on the DVD either. National members do not want to talk about the policies we know National has and the policies they keep trying to hide are the ones that were not on the DVD. We saw that in Australia right-wing industrial relations law led to the defeat of a Government. In New Zealand we know that National wants to go back to an Employment Contracts Act style. We have had a couple of quotes around the place that refer to it. But National members are never up front about what industrial relations law they want. It is about time they reissued this DVD and put some policy on it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Was that speech by Darren Hughes not the Government running up the white flag! We are seeing here today a shambles the likes of which I do not think we have seen in this country in the 8 years of the Labour Government. It is a shambles of things that are symptoms of deep-seated arrogance and paranoia. I do not think we can see it in any other way. 
The question is: when the Government in so much trouble where is Helen Clark? Where is the leader who is meant to be the person who knows everything and controls everything and is always right—and always gets it right if we believe our media? How has the Labour Party managed to turn the employment of a middle-management communications officer in a small minor ministry into such a corrosive destructive personal and negative event? Well I do not know. I do not know how the best political managers the country has ever seen— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s what they say. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is what they say that is what the media say that is what half the public believe and that is what Helen Clark tells us every week on Monday mornings. 
How did Labour turn it into the debacle where the ministry has defamed its own employee and the Minister who punched another MP came into Parliament and beat up an employee a person no New Zealander has ever heard of? It is because she got in the way of the Labour Party. And that is what the Electoral Finance Bill is about. Anyone who stands in the way of Labour and its political intentions and its political survival gets dealt to but not with the style or even the consistency that there used to be. 
Labour has built its whole argument for the Electoral Finance Bill around anonymous donations. Who put that provision in there? It was not Labour. When Labour introduced the bill there was nothing in it about anonymous donations. The only reason it is in there is that National talked to the Greens about getting the regulated period shortened so the Greens trotted off to Labour and said: “If you don’t put in something about anonymous donations we’ll vote with National to shorten the regulated period.” Now it is at the heart of Labour’s case. Who sums up better the destructive power of Helen Clark than Annette King? 
There is a trail of other victims. I used to think Trevor Mallard was a victim—but there were crocodile tears for the TV cameras one week and the next week he was ripping up the careers of harmless middle-level female civil servants while Lianne Dalziel sat and watched. Now there is Clare Curran another female. She might vote Labour but her career is destroyed. Erin Leigh’s career is destroyed and Madeleine Setchell’s career is destroyed and Annette King is now another lot of road kill on Helen Clark’s path to a job in the UN. 
Annette King has made Minister Burton look competent and lucky. She has made him look lucky. I could not think of a Minister who could have done a worse job of the Electoral Finance Bill. We questioned her on one provision—just one out of 97; the law that applies to MPs—and what chaos there was. She gave us her interpretation. Her interpretation said: “If you say anything about what the next Parliament will do that counts as an election advertisement.” So the Government can spend $50 million as it plans to next year to talk about its record but if the Opposition says anything about what it will do when it becomes the Government that will be illegal unless it meets the criteria of an election advertisement. 
Annette King is not up to it and the Prime Minister is now going around Koru lounges saying that. Annette King needs to know that her leader is telling people that she is not up to it and that the problem with the Electoral Finance Bill is not Helen Clark; it is Annette King. So the Labour Party that believes in itself and backs itself is now down to one person: Helen Clark. That is it—it is her leadership now. Her leadership is a trail of destruction the worst political mismanagement we have seen for years. I thought National in its dying days made a few messes but none was this big and none was this incompetent. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 You know it is one thing to make a cheesy DVD; it is entirely another thing to pinch someone’s intellectual property. That actually sounds like a Coldplay song: “It is one thing to make a cheesy DVD quite another to pinch someone’s IP.” You see there is a little rhyme at the end. 
I will talk just briefly about the cheesy DVD. I had a look at it on YouTube and I tell members that I lasted about 2 or 3 minutes. It was kind of shallow and insincere which is what we would have expected but it was also cringingly bad. It was humorous. It was cringingly bad and humorous. We have not seen a pre-Christmas release as humorous since Paul Holmes’ CD. Do members remember his CD? What was it called? 
Hon David Parker 
: “Snoopy’s Christmas”. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was called “Snoopy’s Christmas”. Paul Holmes put out a CD on which he tried to sing songs he hoped people would play at Christmas time. The problem is that it was the kind of present that people bought for someone who had everything but who had an enormously good sense of humour. We just knew there were people at Christmas time gathered around their stereos listening to that CD and having a good old laugh over a bottle of wine. That is the kind of thing that was going to happen to this DVD until National had to pull it because the party had pinched the intellectual property. 
The first point that members need to know is that the offending song was “Clocks” which is from an album by Coldplay called  
A Rush of Blood to the Head 
. Is that not appropriate that the National Party copied a song from a CD with that title? But I say to members that I have the titles of more Coldplay songs here. You see the National Party and John Key could have used a whole pile of songs from Coldplay. Here are some of them. From the  
Parachutes 
 album which was released in July 2000 there is “Don’t Panic”—the first song on that album. Here is another one: “Spies”. That is the song for when they want to know who pinched all the emails. There were spies. The next song is called “Yellow”. That song is appropriate because National members say one thing before the election and do something completely different afterwards. 
Another song on this album is called “Trouble”. But members should listen to the title of this one. There is a song—I think it is the second to last song on the album  
Parachutes 
—called “We Never Change”. National could have used that song. Of course National members are the hollow men—they never change. They want to convince us that they have changed but deep down they really have not. The last song on the album is “Everything’s Not Lost”. They could have used that song as well after the gaffes they have made. 
The album  
A Rush of Blood to the Head 
 which has the “Clocks” song on it was released in August 2002. I like Coldplay; they are fantastic group. But here is one song National members could have used for the Exclusive Brethren: “God Put a Smile Upon Your Face”. That is a song they could have had playing in the background with the Exclusive Brethren handing out its little leaflets. 
Here is another Coldplay album: it is called  
X & Y 
 and was released in June 2005. The first song on that album is called “Square One” as in going back to square one after someone has made a few botch-ups and tried to get out of a few curly things. Here is the second song: “What If”. What if we had some National Party policy? That would be good would it not? What if we had some National Party policy? The next song is called “White Shadows”. I think that kind of summarises the Orewa speech—the kind of speech in which someone does not want to say something but instead gives out coded messages. 
Here is the next one: “Fix You”—as National will do to the workers of this country if it ever get back in to Government. If it ever gets back in the Employment Contracts Act will be back in. Here is another song: “Twisted Logic”. That is a great song National could have used. The sub-theme of that song could have been Iraq. Do members remember? National would have sent troops then it would not have sent troops then it would have sent troops. That song is one that National could have used. 
What about climate change? There is the twisted logic of National’s climate change policy. It was all a big hoax do members remember? Then Mr Key said he had always been a believer in it. That was twisted logic. 
Here is another song for the Exclusive Brethren—this is a little beauty—“‘Til Kingdom Come”. National could have used any of those songs on the DVD not just “Clocks”. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We can certainly see that these are the last days of a very tired desperate Government when we start to see the arrogance and the out-of-touch nature that is being exhibited. We needed only to listen to the speaker who has just resumed his seat to realise that is the case as he rambled on with no direction. It is a very concerning situation when we see a Government that is as out of touch and as arrogant as this Government. We now have a serous situation whereby Labour members want so determinedly to hang on to their roles in Government that they have rendered parts of the country such as health education and law and order down to a low low level of priority. When we hear of patients cleaning toilets we start to realise that we now have a Government that is completely out of touch and full of paranoia about being sent to Coventry. 
The last speaker mentioned that workers were afraid. I would like to take this opportunity to relate a little story. The villains in it are Helen Clark and Annette King; the heroes are 240 enrolled nurses. Those enrolled nurses who were the best carers we had at the time followed the endorsement of Helen Clark and Annette King who publicly took the photo opportunities and verbally endorsed the 2004 enrolled nurses programme which specialised in long-term care and rehabilitation. The programme started at Whangarei and ended at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. When the last of those courses were run and the nurses received their qualifications as enrolled nurses the next day they had their title taken off them. All the words and rhetoric of that Labour Government did not count one ounce. That was abominable. 
The Labour members talk about workers but what did that do? It rendered those people who had earned the right to be called enrolled nurses down to a level below that of toilet cleaners. They could not get a job. They got the useless title “nurse assistant”. What on earth does that mean? There are 240 people who did that course and fewer than half of those people are in the sector today. Who is to blame for that? Annette King and Helen Clark are to blame. That is hugely serious. One of the members on that side Lianne Dalziel did to her credit say that those people went in for a BMW and came out with a Mini. I must correct Lianne Dalziel though she was quite right and noble. They did not even come out with a blasted Mini; they came out with something much worse than that. The enrolled nurses had to take a collective case to the District Court. They got together $15000 and they had their case heard. The judge did not have the capability within the law to award them costs. He told them that although they did have a case they would be better to go to the High Court. 
Now the heroes here are those 240 enrolled nurses. They did not roll over like everybody else who is afraid of this paranoid arrogant Labour Government. They got a hearing at the Regulations Review Committee and what was the outcome? The very learned chair of the Regulations Review Committee Richard Worth found in favour of those 240 enrolled nurses. What did the committee say? It said to the Government it was the committee’s view that the Government should invite the Nursing Council to reinstate the title of those enrolled nurses. The sad thing is that when we look we see that at this very moment a public email has been sent around to all and sundry and the Nursing Council is still trying to screw the scrum. 
So effectively we have here a Labour Government that sells its workers short. At a time when we need to have plenty of employees inside our health sector the Government has turned them away. The Government has completely crushed and ruined the people who did that intense year’s study. I ask the Government members not to be arrogant and not to assume that they have the high ground when it comes to looking after workers. That case is a classic case whereby they have rendered the very best of people within the caring fraternity down to a level below that of those who clean toilets and they should be ashamed of that. 
Where are we situated at the moment? When we count the cost of that situation we find that it cost $1.4 million in tertiary education fees. It cost one of those ladies $22000 to do the course. From that point of view those people have had to give up 12 months of employment. That is shameful. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Before I start I want to advise the member who has just completed his speech Colin King that in such a robust speech it is quite important to have the correct facts. To that end I remind the member that it was actually a National Government that stopped the training for enrolled nurses and National stopped the training for the dental therapists as well. So although the speech was given in a robust manner it is important to have those facts correct. In case the member forgets I point out that it was actually National that stopped training for both enrolled nurses and dental therapists. 
I take the opportunity to place on record some of the positive things that this Labour-led Government has promoted. Some of the positive promotions of our policies have been through for example the economy. Unemployment has been reduced to just 3.6 percent. More than 200000 New Zealanders have already been helped with their personal savings through KiwiSaver. I move on to the issue of sustainability. New Zealand’s household sustainability programme will help households to identify practical steps to cut their electricity and power bills. We are quite proud of the policy we have adopted in relation to climate change. 
These policies are all designed to help and they explain why Helen Clark enjoys such a comfortable lead as a leader and a Prime Minister. I do think that that was the underlying reason why the Opposition decided to go with the DVD—a DVD that breached copyright. Is it not amazing that Temuera Morrison is currently campaigning against copyright piracy yet we have an Opposition party that has been caught out on that same problem? From what I can gather those members did not get caught out immediately. It actually took them 4 days to pull the DVD—a whole 4 days. On the Friday the issue was exposed on the Saturday it was published in the papers and on the Sunday the papers were still covering the story. But it was not until the Monday that John Key decided to pull it. So the rubber hit the road and it took him 4 days to do it. And those members are saying that he might be a possible Prime Minister! Will it take him 4 days to make a decision if he is Prime Minister? I doubt it. 
This is very reflective of other gaffes that have happened in the past is it not? There was the flip-flop on Iraq. The extent of the policy was “Do we send troops there? Do we not send troops there?”. The release of National’s health policy showed that National would increase doctors’ fees. There was also the policy of selling State assets. All those things show what a typical disaster the Opposition is in promoting its opportunity to become the Government. 
So can we trust John Key? It does not look as though we can. At the end of the day he would not take the responsibility of accepting the blame for the DVD. He blamed his staff and when that did not work he blamed the publisher. So his measure of credibility is far gone. I think that the reason why the Opposition wanted to promote that DVD was to try to oppose the positive things that this Labour-led Government has been doing. I mentioned some of those positive things earlier. Regarding our seniors under a Labour-led Government there will always be superannuation for retirement. We have also invested heavily in raising the rate of New Zealand superannuation from 60 percent to 66 percent. In the area of health I can say that just the other day we recommitted the new Kaitaia Hospital. So we are investing in health and we are conscious of our obligations in relation to providing safe health care and providing education. 
I think it is important for us to acknowledge the good things that this Labour-led Government is promoting. We will continue to do that. We have a heavy Order Paper to continue with particularly with the debate we are having at the moment over the Electoral Finance Bill. We all know that the reason we are promoting that bill is due to National’s experiences with the Exclusive Brethren. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would like to refer members on my left to Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1. They refer to members moving from their seats to facilitate interjection. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Our maternity service statistics are quite shameful and the grandiose headline that we read in today’s newspaper “Heads may roll” and a baby’s death that could mean the axing of a health board are not going to fix the situation in either the long term or the short term. The bottom line is that this situation should never have got to this stage in the first place. Making an example of one district health board is going to do nothing to solve the operational problems and the staff shortages caused by successive Governments right throughout the country. 
We like to consider ourselves as a First World country but there is too high an incidence of death and injuries in relation to newborn babies for anyone to be even vaguely satisfied that we have the best possible maternity service operating here in New Zealand. We have the Health and Disability Commissioner conducting continual ongoing investigations into the injuries and deaths of mothers and the deaths of babies. The issue seems to be never-ending and we can feel very very sorry for all the families who have suffered these tragedies. 
What is going wrong? Many many things! We know that having a baby is not the same for everybody; it does vary from person to person—different to the textbooks—but the last thing that most mothers want is to be kicked out of the hospital as quickly as possible with the promise of a grocery voucher. What an insult! Mothers need some experienced care and they want some support to ensure that they are on the right line. It is absolutely essential. To think that someone would leave hospital for a $100 grocery voucher is absolutely chronic. It is wrong just so wrong. At this stage after having a baby most mothers find it even challenging to think logically let alone to think through the consequences of leaving an environment where medical assistance is available and where if it is required it is very very close. If beds are in such direly short supply then other measures must be taken. To wave a grocery voucher around in front of mothers is not an option. 
I think we have to realise that many of today’s mothers are older than mothers used to be and probably far less fit than mothers used to be because they have worked for longer and they have sat behind desks for many weeks—many years in fact. When the mothers of present-day mothers went in to have babies 2 weeks in hospital was the norm not 6 hours. Basically what it means is that mothers nowadays need greater care and their needs are often far more complex. And of course they need time to establish their bond with their babies. Babies are far more complex and challenging to deal with than filling out a piece of paper or playing on a computer. Motherhood is not an easy job. Mothers require far more guidance and expertise than quite often they receive. 
So what do we have now? We have the Minister of Health with an outstanding opportunity to act decisively in order to solve the problems within our maternity service. And the problems are not just in Wellington; there are problems New Zealand – wide and we have all heard of many examples. Perhaps Wellington does need to be first but every other district health board in the country needs to focus on this. So rather than the usual line of blaming the district health boards and then offering some soothing words about another report that “should throw light on the problem” or of setting up another committee the Minister has to look for solutions to a problem that is not going to go away because the statistics all show that the birth rate is rising. 
It is a big problem. We know that we are currently short of 200 midwives and the likelihood that we can actually fill that number of vacancies is extremely remote. That has to be of great concern to everybody. We know that it takes time to train midwives and that there is not a queue of people out there lining up to become midwives. The Minister has to look for alternatives and rapidly. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 New Zealanders beware the nanny State and this very very arrogant Labour Government. Be very afraid. Helen Clark and Labour are surreptitiously sucking out the lifeblood of New Zealanders. They are taking away our independence our confidence our freedoms and the very essence of the Kiwi lifestyle of getting out there and making it happen. Helen Clark and Labour just do not trust Kiwis. They do not trust us to spend our own money they do not trust us to look after our families and they do not trust us to eat the right food. This week as a final insult we are losing our right to the freedom of speech without Government control one year in three because they do not trust us to vote for them. Do the latest polls have anything to do with this desperate defence of this indefensible bill? 
History is going to describe the Clark Government as the most aggressively domineering and the most arrogant control-freak regime that New Zealand has ever seen. Labour does not trust any of us. It does not trust us to spend our own money because it is absolutely focused on taking it away from us. Despite Treasury advice back in 2003 that we are overtaxed Treasury said that Labour has the scope to cut taxes and still increase expenditure and build up financial assets. But it would not do it. No way. Labour is waiting to buy the 2008 election and it is using our money to build an enormous bureaucracy an empire to control us. 
Back in 1999 there were 30700 civil servants but by 2006 there were 42200—a 41 percent increase. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected on has the call. Now I noticed an instance on both sides of the House where we had members interjecting on each other who do not have the call. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: To house all those workers the cost of office space leased by Government departments has grown by more than 70 percent. Labour will not even leave the army of civil servants alone to get on with the job. It arrogantly micro-manages them because civil servants cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted to deliver Government services without Labour’s prescribed political spin. Madeleine Setchell was a threat. She was too professional and too impartial. Erin Leigh was painted as incompetent erroneously as we have now discovered because she was too principled to kowtow to their airbrushed spin doctor view of the world as was her boss Neal Cave. Instead the Labour Government promoted Labour-lovey party faithful Clare Curran. How impartial do members think her public relations will be? 
Labour has thrown huge lumps of money at every possible Government service but it is to deliver propaganda and political spin not any real benefits to the people who are paying for it. An extra $5 billion has gone to health yet the patients are cleaning the toilets! Millions more dollars have gone into education but it is not to teachers interacting with students in classrooms it is to ministry bureaucracy. More millions have been put into nanny State spending on social engineering and more billions spent on regulations on just about everything. It is regulation that so often impedes and frustrates ordinary New Zealanders for no real tangible benefits. Ask any small-business owner ask anyone trying to build a house or fix a leaky home ask any ratepayer or the local councils that have to administer these rules and regulations—the direct and indirect costs of excessive regulation are stifling this country. And here we hit the nub of the whole issue. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave for Nicky Wagner to have a 30-second extension of time. Because she said “And here we hit the nub” I was gripped Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide you have been here a long time and you know you cannot seek leave for someone else. You are being naughty. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary speech but quite frankly I did not want to hear about the nub. What a fiasco these last couple of weeks have been for National. First there was John Key’s big announcement. What was that? It was that hey he is ambitious. Wow what an announcement that was! I think we all figured that out some time ago when he pushed Bill English aside and dumped Gerry Brownlee so there is nothing new in that. Then in addition we get $50000 worth of boring propaganda on DVD no doubt paid for by National’s rich mates out there. The DVD is all sugar and syrup with no insight no policy and no answers. There are no answers about doctors’ fees no answers about asset sales no answers about workers’ rights and no answers for families. The National Party is very embarrassed about this ridiculous DVD. It was meant to convince New Zealanders that John Key is a real person not some kind of Merrill Lynch dummy. It was the big secret weapon. In John Key’s own words the DVD is intended “to give Kiwis a closer look at my life and what I stand for”. How sad is that? After all this time as the National leader he has had to make his own DVD because most New Zealanders would not have a clue who he is let alone what he stands for. That is how out of touch he is with the rest of New Zealand. 
The commentators along with the rest of us had a good laugh. John Armstrong gave the DVD two out of five. He said: “Hold the popcorn. Citizen Kane this isn’t. It’s Citizen Key in a 13-minute epic saturated with more artificial sweetener than The Sound of Music and ET combined and which manages to make National’s leader look about as deep as one of The Stepford Wives.” 
Then we found out that National ripped off someone else’s music for this DVD and it is now attempting to spin its way out of that debacle by blaming the production company. We need to remember that “Clocks” by Coldplay which has been stolen was not chosen at random. It was the song National used when John Key entered the male pale and stale National Party conference some months back. It even ran a competition to pick it trying desperately to show us how cool it really is. It is a miserable song. Actually it is a lovely tune and I do like Coldplay but let us just remind ourselves what the words to that song are: 
“Lights go out and I can’t be saved 
Tides that I tried to swim against 
You’ve put me down upon my knees. 
Oh I beg I beg and plead …  
Confusion that never stops 
Closing walls and ticking clocks … 
Am I part of the cure? 
Or am I part of the disease …” 
Let us remember that this was the conference where John Key was in this fantasy world where he thought he was going to be the leader of the Labour Party. It says it all about National’s conference and it says it all about John Key and the National Party. 
Now that the DVD has turned to custard National is trying to point the finger elsewhere. That is typical of National members. They cannot take responsibility; they blame the workers they blame the staff and they have a go at them. They do not take any responsibility. What we can be really sure of is that this DVD is not on anyone’s Christmas list. I would say that it is the gift from hell. It is the gift one gives the most disliked person one has to give a gift to and that person throws it in the rubbish bin pretty quickly. The good thing is that Labour members do not need DVDs to tell the public who we are or what we stand for. We do not need to convince New Zealanders that we have one of the best Prime Ministers this country has ever had and neither does she need DVDs for people to get to know who she is because they know who she is. 
It is deeds not words that matter and Labour demonstrates this every day. All year we have been getting on with the people’s business. We have not been distracted by petty politics or campaigns run by huge money interests like National’s friends out there right now. We take the job of governing seriously. It is important that we talk about policy and ask some questions. Doctors’ fees and prescriptions are now cheaper. They are down by 50 percent. What would National do about that? I think it would put them up. We have built more hospitals from Kaitaia to Invercargill and they do not have a cash register at the door.  
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Electoral Finance Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 December. 
Part 2 Election campaigns ( 
continued 
)  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 What a shambles we are getting from Annette King. Labour is not getting on with the people’s business at all. Part 2 shows that it is getting on with Labour’s business and Labour’s business is anything it can do to stay in Government. 
When the House rose last night I was looking at the provision that exempts MPs from the coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill. National takes issue with that. Why are MPs exempt from the rules that apply to everybody else? There is a simple reason. Labour knows that MPs can spend money on things that average citizens cannot so it has changed the rules to make sure that MPs can go ahead and spend public money on things that any other New Zealander cannot. 
This is the provision that legalises the pledge card. Therefore one would have thought that the Government knew what it was talking about when it made this provision. But the Minister of Justice has demonstrated to the House each day for the last couple of weeks that she has no idea what the Government was talking about when it exempted MPs from the coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill. Well she ought to know because every other New Zealander wants to know why something that is published by the Labour Party a community organisation or an individual citizen could be illegal but if published by an MP would be legal. That is not one law for everybody; that is giving MPs a privileged position. So what does that mean? 
The chief executive of the Electoral Commission said that she did not know. The Minister of Justice then grossly overstepped her capacity by coming to Parliament and saying that she would read into the record what it means to have an MP’s exemption and tell us what MPs can do. But with the deep paranoia and arrogance of Labour it turned out that her interpretation went like this: the Opposition cannot say anything about what it will do. If people are Opposition MPs then they cannot say “We will cut taxes.” because that will count as an election advertisement. That leaves the Government of course free to spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising what it is doing. 
So the Government would be allowed to say what it is doing but Opposition MPs would not be allowed to say what they will do. Clearly that was stupid. I do not know what officials told the Minister but if that is what they told her then she should have told them they were stupid. 
The bill is stupid. It is unenforceable it is unfair and it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous that the Minister who is full of bluster and certainty came to the House and said that yes it was probably wrong. Where does that leave MPs who want to avoid committing a corrupt act? The Minister does not know what the legislation means and she botched her one attempt to tell us what it means. So that means that the Electoral Commission does not know what it means. 
The Minister now says that the statements she made were personal statements despite the fact that she is a Government Minister with a Government bill. Apparently they were personal views which is not what she said at the time so now the courts cannot take those statements as any kind of guidance. This Minister could not have made a worse hash of the technical aspects of this bill. This one provision and it is only one—it is actually the one we thought might not be too complicated but it has turned out to be endlessly complicated—must change. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this part of the bill. I sought some calls yesterday but unfortunately I was not one of the chosen ones. I will devote my time firstly to clause 38 then if I have time look at the definition of “type of party” which is included in election advertisements in clause 53 I think it is. 
Clause 38 “Return of party donation received from same donor exceeding $20000” is part of the legal minefield that this Government is creating with this bill. It is part of the confusion part of the complexity because this clause will require every financial agent—who will of course have to be the candidate as nobody else will want to be a financial agent because of the onerous obligations and responsibilities—to file a return a special return of donations within 10 working days when a particular donor’s running total of donations for the past 12 months exceeds $20000. As if candidates do not have enough to do without working out how many donors there are and when their running totals will actually exceed $20000! They have to fill in bureaucratic forms and file a return setting out the donor’s name the address of the donor the amount of the donation and the date of the donation. This return has to be filed in the correct form with the Electoral Commission and that has to be done within 10 working days of the donation being received. 
Clause 38 is just one of many clauses that have been born out of paranoia that a donor will give a lot of money to a party in an election year but that this fact will not be revealed until the annual return of donations that comes out the year after the election. Donations exceeding $20000 are hardly uncommon. In 2005 only 16 percent of Labour’s total revealed donations were donations of $20000 or less. Most of Labour’s revealed donations exceeded $20000. 
This bill is pure bureaucracy at its worst and even more of a bureaucratic burden on financial agents—and for what? I would like the Minister to tell us how many more staff will be required in the Electoral Commission office not only to deal with anonymous donations—to be the receptacle of a bank account for anonymous donations—but now to receive files and to note all the returns from financial agents for donations where the running total exceeds $20000. This clause is not needed which is why there is a Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Chris Finlayson deleting it in its entirety. 
This bill has been drafted in undue haste and its implications have obviously been poorly considered if considered at all. But as has been said it is a great example of how when it comes to making law more haste can actually mean less speed. 
I turn now to clause 53 of this part which defines election advertisements. I do that because I want to refer back to the interpretation clause and in particular to the phrase “type of party”. I ask what is actually meant by “type of party”. As a comparison I say if one builds a house and the foundations for that house are not right the house will never be right. In a sense the law is like that. The definition clauses and the interpretation of a bill are the foundations of that legislation and these definitions are flawed. 
In clause 5(1)(a) which talks about “election advertisement” and refers to “words or graphics” to encourage “voters to vote or not to vote” the particular words I am interested in are “for a type of party”. I would like to know for example what a “type of party” is. The question that has been asked is whether the Government is a type of party. Does “type of party” mean centre parties Opposition parties or Government parties? We know that the Electoral Commission has said that given that there is more than one party in Government then yes a Government party is a type of party. However the Minister has answered the question in the Chamber with the response: “I certainly do not believe that this is the case. It depends on the context in which the advertisement is used.” And then she said “It is not my job to interpret that.” But it is the Minister’s job to ensure that legislation passed under her watch is clear unambiguous and certain and this has not happened in relation to this clause or in fact in relation to many other clauses. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution on the interpretation of clauses 58 80 and 81 in relation to spending undertaken by members of Parliament in their roles as members of Parliament rather than as candidates. I draw the Committee’s attention to the current section 213 of the Electoral Act 1993 which relevantly provides that “election activity in relation to a candidate at an election in any district means an activity … (c) which—(i) relates to the campaign for the return of the candidate in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate for the district and not to the candidate—(A) in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament or as the holder of any other office;”. That is the law at the moment. 
The Electoral Finance Bill will repeal this provision and re-enact it as regards candidates in clause 58 and then go on to replicate it in summary form in clauses 80 and 81 concerning party expenses. This will ensure that members of Parliament can continue to carry out their obligations to communicate with their constituents— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Your heart’s not in it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Members opposite may not think that it is important to communicate with constituents but members on this side of the Chamber do and take that responsibility very seriously. 
There is no clear legislative definition of “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” and in my view it would actually be undesirable to try to define too tightly what MPs can appropriately do as MPs. The situation will always be evolving. But the lack of a clear definition does not mean there is no guidance available to MPs or to those interpreting the legislation. Let me just cite three sources for the benefit of the Committee where assistance can be derived to assist in interpreting the meaning of clauses 58 80 and 81. 
The first source is the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act which is very recent legislation of this House. That Act specifies that MPs cannot spend parliamentary resources on material that seeks to support the election of a particular person or particular people or that seeks to support the casting of a party vote for a particular political party or parties or that encourages any person to become a member of a political party or parties or that solicits subscriptions or other financial support. So any material that failed that four-part test could not properly be said to be issued in an MP’s capacity as an MP rather than as a candidate. 
Let us just think about the second source the Speaker’s directions and determinations as endorsed by the Parliamentary Service Commission. Although the legislation sets out the broad framework the Speaker on the advice of the Parliamentary Service Commission has recently issued rules on the way MPs can spend parliamentary money. Material issued by an MP in his or her capacity as an MP rather than as a candidate would need to meet this test. The Auditor-General appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week. He commented on how helpful these new guidelines are and in particular on how useful the pre-approval process is. So there is very clear guidance from that quarter as to what constitutes material put out by MPs in their capacity as MPs. 
Finally there is practice. This provision has been substantially part of our law since 1956. It is not an innovation that the Electoral Commission has to grapple with and we should not pretend that it is. The law in this area is actually relatively well settled. Let us not make a storm in a teacup about it. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will be quick because with the way this is going through I am not sure we will get a second chance to speak to this part. I want to speak to two things. The first is my amendments to increase the limits that candidates are able to spend from $20000 to $30000 in an election and from $40000 to $60000 in a by-election. I put those amendments forward in the hope that they will get support. I have calculated what the limits would be if adjusted by the approximate purchasing power parity from what they were when first set in 1995. It is no aim on my part given the will of Parliament to increase the amounts; it is actually just to adjust them for inflation to be exactly equivalent to what they were in 1995. Quite frankly the $20000 limit is a bit ludicrous when we think of what things cost now compared with what they did in 1995. I look to the Minister in the hope that we can gain some support for those amendments. It certainly would have made a difference to me in the last election campaign when I was up against it in Epsom. 
I have a point of clarification. I think it is fair to say that I do not like this bill. The ACT party does not like this bill and we struggle to grasp it fully. With the Supplementary Order Papers we struggle to grasp it fully. I am not ashamed to admit that and I think everyone will be struggling with this bill for some time. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: My Supplementary Order Papers are OK. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes; I trust Mr Finlayson with my life! I refer to page 3 of Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Annette King where it is proposed that the word “person” in clause 53(1) be changed to “promoter” as though that helps in any way. But I still think the provision affects any citizen because “promoter” under paragraph (a) of the definition “promoter” in clause 4 “means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is published;” and includes ya-di-ya. It seems to me that it is not just promoters who will have to state their names and addresses but also the general public. The actual Supplementary Order Paper then has no real effect. It seems to me that if for example someone sent out a mass email asking people to vote for parties that supported tax cuts or flat taxes then he or she would be defined as publishing and under this legislation he or she would have to state his or her address. 
Here is an interesting case which I am sure every MP is familiar with. As a matter of safety women who take out protection orders against abusive husbands and who may be staying in a women’s refuge are entitled to be off the electoral roll. It is quite conceivable that such a woman would want our laws toughened up or have a political view she wanted to express. The absurdity of it is that if that woman said anything to the public such as asking people to vote for parties that would get tough on family violence or whatever then under this legislation she would have to publish her full name and address. She would not have to publish her full name and address to vote because we are offering her that protection but if she wanted to be a promoter of a particular policy in election year then she could not do it. 
It seems to me that we are denying people left right and centre an opportunity to express their political views but inadvertently in our rush with this legislation we are overriding other provisions Parliament has legislated for to protect people’s identities so that they can take part in the democracy of this country—that is to say to vote without revealing where they live for reasons of self-protection. With this bill if they want to express their political views on something they have deep experience of and feel passionate about the very legislation we are passing requires them to publish their names and addresses. That is clearly not the will of this Parliament and I ask the Greens New Zealand First the Minister and the Labour Party first of all hopefully to address my concern and explain whether I have it wrong and if I have not—and I am sure that that is the case—to fix it please. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In 2005 the Labour Party received $400000 in anonymous donations and the National Party received $2.2 million from secret trusts—including the Waitemata Trust for example from which it received $1.2 million. These of course are only donations that are over $10000 so who knows how much money either of those parties receive in lots under $10000? The public simply does not know. What we do know is that with the National Party for example many of its donors through secret trusts and by other secret measures were Business Roundtable members. Millions of dollars were funnelled to the National Party by these means. Names that have been bandied around include those of Alan Gibbs David Richwhite Doug Myers and Peter Shirtcliffe. People of that ilk have been donating to the National Party. 
In the US and Australia large secret donors expect payback for the money they contribute to political parties. In Australia just last year that was made more obvious by a former Premier of Victoria who said that in his country Australia $10000 would buy one a meeting with the Prime Minister. This is corruption—cancerous corruption. It arises because either there are flawed controls on secret money being funnelled to political parties or indeed there are no controls on secret money being funnelled to political parties. 
Unfortunately in New Zealand at the moment there are no controls on secret money flowing to political parties so hence the $1.2 million sent to the National Party by people who had be revealed by other means. This is a very poor system for a country that prides itself on its transparent democracy—a very poor system. So the Greens are very proud that in the negotiations and in the select committee work around this bill we have severely restricted the anonymous donations and secret money that parties can receive during election campaigns. The Greens have made sure to the best of our ability that we have inoculated our electoral system against that cancerous corruption that the National Party is so desperate to protect. We have set up in the bill a protected disclosure regime. This is not our policy. We would prefer to see a ban on all anonymous donations over $1000 but this protected disclosure regime goes quite some way towards that policy objective. 
Some people do have good reasons—family reasons—why they have to keep their donations to political parties secret from the party and the public. So recognising that there may be some legitimate reasons we have a system whereby if people want to donate more than $1000 to a political party but do not want the party or the public to know then they give it to the Electoral Commission they say whom they want the money to go to and they give their names and addresses. The Electoral Commission will then send that money on to the political party at various times during the 3 years between elections. That is a way of keeping the donor and the political party separate so the party cannot pretend to not know who gave the money. Parties cannot pretend not to know which is what happened in previous elections. Parties pretended they did not know who gave them money when in fact they did but they did not have to declare it to the public. 
We have also made sure in the bill that there are limits on donations so that parties do not become dependent on very large donors as we have seen happen in Australia and the US. For example under this regime an individual may donate up to $36000 secretly through the Electoral Commission’s protected disclosure process. That process limits how much an individual can give and a party may receive only $240000 of secret money funnelled through the Electoral Commission process. The reason for that is that $240000 is 10 percent of the maximum amount that a party can spend in an election campaign. 
What the Greens have done is to make sure that a party cannot acquire more than 10 percent of its total spending cap through secret means. This is a mechanism for keeping those large secret donors like Business Roundtable members from secretly funnelling into political parties millions of dollars that the public does not know about. We expect that the system will work well. It is similar to a system used in other jurisdictions. One must remember that National receives nearly 100 percent of its total spending cap from anonymous donations. Last election it received in total $2.2 million in secret money. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 That was the Green member Metiria Turei. Dr Worth mentioned to me a day or so ago that he once hired her and she was very good then but what is apparent is that she obviously left Simpson Grierson because she was not very hot on the law of trusts. It is apparent from her work in the Justice and Electoral Committee that she does not understand fundamental principles of trust law and that will become apparent in the course of the debate in the Committee stage—after all she is the person who wanted to ban donations from cake stalls. 
As we know Part 2 is a very important part of the Electoral Finance Bill and indeed the National Party has identified 28 key points that it wishes to address in the course of a clause by clause analysis. It was quite heartening to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King this afternoon that she too wants there to be a full debate on clause 80(d) so that she can obtain guidance on the roles and responsibilities of members of Parliament. 
I think it is very important before I get into my particular clause by clause analysis to say a word or two about procedural matters. From the way the Minister was talking yesterday it seemed that the donations regime had been part of this bill from day one. That is not in fact the case. It is quite clear that the new donations regime was dreamt up at the eleventh hour during the course of the select committee considerations. It was dreamt up by the Greens and was presented to members of the select committee as a fait accompli. 
Let me just recount for the purpose of the record that at the meeting on 29 October Metiria Turei proposed that the bill be amended to provide for a donations regime affecting political parties and candidates. No papers were provided by Ms Turei although she admitted she had prepared an outline of the proposed scheme which she would not provide to the National members of the committee. So much for the committee working together! The chairperson instructed the advisers to proceed to draft the proposal that very day. Then at the meeting of 1 November a summary of the donations regime and of the proposed draft clauses was tabled. The donations regime had been cobbled together in 2 days and it had been agreed to in a backroom deal entered into between the Greens and the majority members of the committee. It is a very important point that it was a secret deal—and Metiria Turei is always very concerned about secret deals and secret payments from trusts. Well this was a secret deal instigated by that worldwide expert in trust law Metiria Turei! There has been no public consultation on these proposals. They were not in the bill as introduced and there was little or no consultation with members of the select committee. 
Before people such as Metiria Turei and other members of Parliament complain about what they say is the obstructive attitude of the National Party they should reflect on the complete lack of consideration when it comes to the issue of donations. The National Party had made it quite clear that if issues about transparency were concerning the public they would be addressed and the National Party would not get in the way of that process. Instead we had this highly regulatory regime cobbled together in 2 days and imposed on the minority without any consultation under the outstanding chairing of the committee by Lynne Pillay. What is more the select committee minority wanted these proposals to go back out to the public for a further round of consultation and the public were essentially told to go and see a taxidermist because that would not happen. I say it is very poor lawmaking to have this kind of regime introduced without proper consideration. To say that 600 submissions were made to the select committee and that 100 people were heard is misleading. On key aspects of the bill and particularly on the new donations regime there was no public consultation whatsoever. 
That provides the background for how Subparts 1 and 1A and Subparts 2 to 4 of this part were introduced into this legislation. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to concentrate firstly on something that the Rt Hon Winston Peters said yesterday. He talked about those 5000 people who marched in Auckland the other day and he said: “I’ve had more people at my meetings.” Well Winston Peters has never had 5000 people at any one meeting with New Zealand First. 
Judith Collins 
: He might have had 5000 mirrors. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He might have had 5000 mirrors but he did not have 5000 people. I would love for him to come down to the Chamber and tell members where and when those 5000 people went to a New Zealand First meeting. 
I will concentrate specifically on clause 25A which I hear has been referred to as the “crayfish clause”. It is ironic that I speak about the “crayfish clause” because I love crayfish so much. The wording of this clause provides that any anonymous donation of over $1000 has to be paid to the Electoral Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer. But my point is that donations can be anything; they do not necessarily have to be cash. They can be crayfish they can be pigs they can be paua and they can be all sorts of things. The donations must be paid over within 20 working days but how one would get pigs worth over $1000 to the Electoral Commission or Chief Electoral Officer within 20 working days is beyond me. The clause talks about $1000 or “its value”. I might add that Mr Finlayson has put forward an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 166 to amend clause 25A. It may seem like an exercise in semantics but it is not. The amendment is trying to fix a clause that should have been put together a hell of a lot better in the first place. We need to change the amount of the donation or “its value” to “the value of the donation”. I think that clears it up in a nutshell. The value of a dozen crayfish could be anything between $45 and $4500; it could be anything. But the value of that donation should then be left with the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission within 20 working days. 
It says to me that this bill is being rushed through. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen who said today in question time that this bill was not being rushed through. It is being rushed through and there are a couple of things staring us right in the face that tell us that this bill is being rushed. One is the number of Government amendments to the bill after it has been through the select committee process—150-odd amendments and there are more to come. That suggests one thing to me which is that this bill has not been thought out properly. It has not been drafted properly because the intent basically is to stop the other side from having a fair crack of the whip. 
I have heard the Greens and New Zealand First prattle on about the rich people in this nation or the people who actually want to give money to a political party. 
Metiria Turei 
: Secretly. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Secretly or otherwise it is their money for goodness’ sake! It is their money. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no we know that the Service and Food Workers Union took $250000 last election—$250000—from its members. It stole $250000 from the Service and Food Workers Union members. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want the Committee and the public of New Zealand to know that back in February this year Bill English made an offer to the Government. That offer was to talk about the electoral law and in particular donations. That offer has been standing for months and months. We have to ask ourselves this question: why has Labour never offered a genuine multiparty conference on electoral law? That offer has been standing for over 1 year and the smug member for the Green Party Metiria Turei knows the truth of that. I can tell members why Labour has refused to do that. The reason is that Labour members never intended that there would be any kind of bipartisan approach. That was not their purpose. What they wanted to do and what they are attempting to do today is to have a partisan self-serving law to meet their own ends. They knew they could not do that if they talked to the National Party. They knew that if they talked to us then there would have been a consensus just like there was in 1993 and in 1956. 
In the past this country has always created its electoral law on a consensus basis but that did not serve the purposes of the Government this time because it knows perfectly well that it wants its own law to suit its own purposes. I would turn the Government’s attention specifically to anonymous donations. It is all very well for Green Party members to say that they have done something around that and have fixed it up and so forth but the Green Party in coalition with its mates in Labour has deliberately designed a manoeuvre that is intended to stop all donations. Those members know perfectly well that if someone is required to give the money to the Government—because effectively they desire that the money be given to a Government bureaucracy—then that will stop. 
What is wrong with trusting people? We were prepared to have a reasonable regime around anonymous donations but surely people should be able to donate to parties even anonymously and of course subject to reasonable rules. The amount of money raised that was mentioned by Metiria Turei $36000 is probably reasonable but the device of deliberately inserting the Electoral Commission as the recipient is designed to chill contributions made by the public. Those members know that that will be the effect and that is why they have done it in that way. They did not get involved in a discussion with the National Party because they knew we would not agree with such a self-serving shallow approach to electoral law. 
So this bill is actually all about petty payback. I have sat in this Chamber over the last couple of days and heard those members prattle on about Nicky Hager’s book as if it is some kind of testament as to why this law is necessary and that actually shows their motivation does it not? Those members’ motivation is petty payback. I say to the Government that one does not construct constitutional law on that basis. I say to the Green Party which always says that it believes in integrity and in consensus that this law will not endure because those members have gone about it in a self-serving selfish way for their own purposes. I tell the Government that it did not have to have the  
New Zealand Herald  
running a whole campaign against it because it has brought that on itself by the construction of this law and the donations regime in it. In truth by doing that and by serving its own purposes it will be defeated. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister in the chair Annette King was interjecting during my colleague’s very good speech. I would ask you to remind the Minister that when she is sitting in that chair it is my understanding that she cannot interject. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right and I had not realised it was so overt. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will deal specifically with clause 22 of the bill and I propose that there be an amendment in relation to anonymous donations. But before I deal with that I need to correct some of the statements made this afternoon particularly by the Green Party contributor in relation to anonymous donations. 
Metiria Turei has referred to anonymous donations as if they are some sort of evil that needs to be dealt with and sorted out. Well I have some news for her—that is as a candidate and as the Clevedon electorate MP I can tell her that I do not want to know who has contributed to my campaign. I do not want to know for the very good reason that I never want anyone to be able to walk into my office and say that he or she paid me X amount of money so that I have to do something for that person. I never want to be in the situation of being an MP in the dock because I have been involved in some bribery case. I think that that Green MP over there who has never been an electorate MP might want to consider that. We never ever want to be in that situation and that is why in my party we prefer our candidates never to know where their donations come from. Well we might have an idea but we never really want to know. 
There is an old story which is true of a National Prime Minister who was approached by someone who had been a big donor. He said to that Prime Minister “I want to have this. This is why I donated for you.” and he was ordered out of the Prime Minister’s office right then and there. And that is the way it should be. If people donate to a party they should not expect anything in return because if they do that is actually buying politics. That is not what our people want us to do. They want us to do the best we can for New Zealand in the way that we have told New Zealanders we are going to do that. 
But in clause 22 we have a situation where there could be unintended consequences. Even though the Minister of Justice would like to believe there is such a thing as the law of common sense I can tell her that there is not. But there is I think a law of unintended consequences. One of the things that will happen is that under the anonymous donations clauses by the way the bill has been drafted a lot of donations will continue to be anonymous in that they will be put through trusts and unions. Anybody can donate to a union. The union can then go off and donate—oh gosh what—$170000 to the Labour Party and Labour will declare the donation as union funds. Where did the funds come from? They might have come from the membership but an awful lot will come through as secret donations. So it will not make a scrap of difference except that with the financial controller rules a lot of candidates will be required to know where these donations have come from. The provision will be anti-democratic not pro-democratic. 
To show just how badly thought-out this provision is I tell members that when we turn to the definition of “anonymous” in clause 22(2) we see that it means “a donation that is made in such a way that the financial agent who receives the donation—(a) does not know the identity of the donor; or (b) could not in the circumstances reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor”. It should not be “or”; it should be “and”; otherwise it is just an utter nonsense. We will have people who say: “Well I couldn’t in the circumstances be reasonably expected to know but yes I do know.” in which case they will not be dealt with under this particular provision. So I suggest that the Minister consider that amendment and change the “or” to an “and”. Otherwise I think we will have a difficult situation. 
Hon Annette King 
: Clause 22? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is in clause 22(2)(a) and (b). 
Hon Annette King 
: The “and” and the “or”? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I will show the Minister after my speech. This is a very very important bill. It has been around really since the last election—for the last 2 years—and here we are right now in the Committee with the Minister and others coming up with proposals and changes and looking at what the National Party is asking to be done and saying: “Oh yes that might help.” 
The fact is that this legislation is too important to be left to the last moment. It is too important to be left until an urgency motion next week. It is far too important to be left as the sort of legislation the Green Party would like us to put forward where apparently everyone will be named and shamed for donating to the National Party. We have seen from this Government what happens to people when they stand up to the Labour Party. We have seen what happened to the women who worked in the communications area in the Ministry for the Environment. We have seen what happens. Other people have seen it as well. This is an anti-democratic bill; it is not pro-democratic. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will not try to rebut all of the misrepresentations made by National Party members. It would take all day and it is not really necessary because what we are really hearing from them all is the sad pain of their realisation that they are losing millions and millions of dollars of secret money dribbling out of their back pockets. It is an understandable pain. I accept that they need to express it. I do not really need to address it much more than that. 
I want to remind the people in this Chamber and also those outside this Chamber about the way that some of the secret money was used. I refer to the billboard campaign prior to the last election. One of the ways that some of the secret money was used—and we are trying to ban secret money through the protected donations disclosure regime—and also one of the areas of parliamentary spending by the National Party was on the billboard campaign that occurred during the period from about March to the election in 2005. National spent $600000 on billboard sites within just the 3 months of the regulated period. But in fact its billboard campaign began much earlier in the year than that. I refer particularly to the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign that began late in April. This campaign was built on the Orewa speech which was designed to feed prejudices and fears by casting Maori as corrupt and reinventing beliefs for pecuniary gain. That is what Don Brash said—that Maori were cast as corrupt and reinventing beliefs for pecuniary gain. He vowed to put an end to Maori special privilege and used Maori specifically to generate fear anger and resentment in order to boost his poll rating. 
National did not believe any of those things but thought the campaign might be a good way of getting votes. It turned out that it was. In order to build on the momentum from Orewa National did the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard. We know that Bryan Sinclair who was working with the National Party was talking with members of Parliament particularly Maurice Williamson about issues around the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign. He said that National needed to “slosh those funds around” that National had to “spend to win votes” and that the billboard campaign was a “credible area in which to open the cheque book”. This is what he said to Maurice Williamson. 
National used 90 billboard sites around the country to run the “Iwi/Kiwi” campaign and it was arguably the most successful billboard campaign. I hope that the Maori Party and others out there are reminded about the issues around the “Iwi/Kiwi” campaign. It was arguably the most successful of that billboard campaign because it was deeply dishonest. It was calculated emotional manipulation. Those “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards were established to meet the need to portray simple messages that had emotional resonance with National Party voters. It encouraged non-Maori to feel separate to feel threatened by Maori and to feel that Maori wanted to take away their beaches and threaten the Kiwi culture around the oceans even though that was never the risk. The “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard was designed to drive a wedge between Maori and Pakeha specifically so that the National Party could gain votes. 
There were other similar billboards. Members might remember the one about Government spending that said: “Hip hop tours welfare bribes prisoner compo singalong courses taniwha”. That one worked in particular because many of those little aspects—taniwha the prisoner compo and singalong courses—were specifically about Maori issues or Maori people that were in the media at the time. So this was a way of saying that the Government was spending all that money on “those Maoris” and not on the ordinary people of New Zealand thereby again driving a wedge between Pakeha and Maori. 
This was the way that the National Party was spending that secret money—the millions of dollars of secret money that it was getting. This was the way it was spending its parliamentary money as well—on those kinds of billboard campaigns. This is the kind of divisive false dishonest manipulative politics that this country does not deserve. This country does not deserve to have that kind of politics. Neither does it deserve—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Does Chris not like that? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: It is not a question of whether I like it; it is a question of whether it is relevant. We are dealing with a part by part analysis and a clause by clause analysis. This is a general speech. This is exactly the point— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can I finish? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am going to rule on the point of order. Mr Finlayson I certainly say to you that that is a debating point. I think every speech has had that sort of debate in it. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Of course I am talking about the reason why it is so important to have a control on the secret money that flows to political parties because if we do not know where that money is coming from parties can use it for such nefarious purposes. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am glad that the Minister Annette King is here because I would like to focus on a particular provision and strongly urge that it be looked at afresh by her and her officials. The particular clause is clause 84(1) which is headed “Maximum amount of party’s election expenses”. It is a deceptively simple provision but there has in my view been a drafting slip. I know that view is shared by others including Mr Finlayson because he has a Supplementary Order Paper that is calculated to deal with the issue. When rights are involved I would say there must be precision in language and this is such a case because democratic rights are involved with this legislation and with this particular provision. Clause 84(1) purports to set some maxima. It reads: “Where a party is listed in the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote the party’s election expenses in respect of any regulated period must not exceed—(a) the amount of $1000000; and (b) the amount of $20000 for each electoral district contested by a candidate for the party.” 
The courts have a very straightforward way of approaching issues of statutory interpretation. One of the starting points is to look at provisions that are set out in the Interpretation Act 1999. Section 5 of that Act is headed “Ascertaining meaning of legislation”. The legislation states: “The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose.” Section 5(2) states: “The matters that may be considered in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment include the indications provided in the enactment.” Section 5(3) provides examples of those indications. 
The issue centres on the word “and” in clause 84(1)(a) of the Electoral Finance Bill. The use of “and” in statutory drafting can often give rise to ambiguity. That is what has happened in this particular case. The use of the word “and” in this setting can mean one of two quite different things. Does it mean a cumulative amount or is it setting separate tests? Clause 84(1)(a) states that a “party’s election expenses in respect of any regulated period must not exceed—(a) the amount of $1000000; and (b) the amount of $20000 for each electoral district contested by a candidate for the party.” The ambiguity around the word “and” is that it could be read as meaning that a party’s expenses must not exceed $1000000 and must not exceed $20000 for each electoral district. Clearly that is not what was intended. 
If one goes back to the predecessor legislation which is section 214B of the Electoral Act one sees that it states that the limit is $1000000 plus $20000 for each constituency contested by a candidate for the party. If this issue arose in a court setting the judges would look at the predecessor legislation and see the wording change that has occurred and they would draw from that an inference that change was intended. But that is not what is intended. It is intended that “and” means “plus” or that “and” means “together with”. That has not been said. I urge the Minister to look critically at this issue because there has been a significant change and that is reflected in the predecessor legislation. It is a little like what Humpty-Dumpty said in  
Alice in Wonderland 
 in that memorable line “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This issue of “and” and what it can mean in various settings has been the subject of academic writing. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 One of the things that has concerned me about this debate is that we have had Mr Bill English going around this country talking about how much money different political parties spend out of the public purse. He has pointed the finger at New Zealand First and the Labour Party in particular knowing full well that the biggest spender of public funds is the National Party. In total the National Party has spent each year something in the vicinity of $7 million of public money. 
Ron Mark 
: How much? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It has spent $7 million. The story with regard to that and what is wrong about it is that Mr English is going around telling the public— 
Paula Bennett 
: We didn’t win. Money obviously doesn’t buy an election. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: If Ms Bennett is worried about this issue I cannot help that. But the fact is that her deputy leader has been going around this country talking about the money being used to run our electorate offices. That is what he is talking about. 
Because the National Party has the second-highest number of people in this House and it does not have any Ministers it spends the most money. But Mr English is not saying anything like that. He is not explaining how that works. He is not telling people like John Boscawen that that is how the job works and those people are ignorant of these matters. Mr English is perpetuating an incorrect statement. The National Party is then going to its friends at the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which is further perpetuating these wrong statements and misleading the public. 
What I will talk mainly about today and what I had to leave off talking about yesterday is the Minister’s invitation to clarify what MPs do. It needs clarification. 
Rodney Hide 
: You still don’t know Doug? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I know what Rodney does. I know that he walks up Queen Street with duct tape over his mouth which he should actually do more of. I liked that. We know that he goes on  
Dancing with the Stars 
. We know that he is not here very much. We know that he rarely turns up at select committees. But apart from that I do not know much more about what he does. 
I certainly know what MPs do but we are actually talking about defining what MPs do. People should know that when they expect MPs to turn up in different parts of the country all in the same week those MPs will have to expend some energy and jet fuel and will have to take a plane to get there. Hence MPs have free air travel. 
MPs have to stand up on a platform and tell people what their parties are about. MPs have to explain the policies of their particular party. In the case of ACT member Rodney Hide he is particularly blessed because that will take him only a couple of minutes and he can get back to eating sponges and drinking soda water. But in New Zealand First’s case explaining our policies takes a wee while. We need to define how that is done. We need to define and to put in place explanations that give effect to that process and reflect that we are indeed needed to go around this country. MPs are invited to explain what we do and what we intend to do. We have to be able to do that without it being called electioneering. 
Of course there comes a time when we do go out and electioneer. Those situations can usually be defined quite clearly by our asking for votes. We go out and say clearly to people: “We want you to vote for us because we think we can do this this and this better than other parties.” When we are doing that we are clearly electioneering. But if we are not asking for a vote then I suggest to members that we are going about our normal business. 
This has been a problem ever since I have been in Parliament. It has been the subject of debate and people have misconstrued what electioneering is and what it is not. To me it is quite clear. I hope the Minister is able to put it on paper. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I will speak particularly on clause 55B. I am quite delighted that the Minister Annette King is actually in the chair because I have some questions about the clause as well. So I am looking forward to going down that track on the actual clause. 
The clause quite adamantly states that Government departments State-owned enterprises Crown entities Crown-owned companies and other instruments of the Crown cannot promote an election advertisement. I am not really sure why this clause was put into the bill and I would be interested in hearing from the Minister the reason for that. I presume it was to try to dispel the National Party’s absolute concerns that those State-owned enterprises and Government departments were going to be advertising by stealth political advertisements of the Labour Party by pretending the advertisements were policy and using the funds for that. We have been taking quite an interest in the communications budgets of those departments to see whether that is true. 
But the Government has finally twigged that this provision would include Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand and there was the fear that it would prevent them from broadcasting campaign openings and closings. So the Government has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to avoid doubt with an amendment that does not prevent any broadcaster from broadcasting an election programme or prevent TVNZ or Radio New Zealand from broadcasting opening and closing addresses. So the Government has tried to cover up the issue with that Supplementary Order Paper and I note that that is why it has done that. 
I wanted to ask the Minister why there was no regulatory period. This regulation could run continuously not just for the 3 years but overall because the legislation does not specify any regulatory period. Reading the legislation I have some real concerns that it could mean that certain persons and bodies may not promote an election advertisement. 
I think what is most important about this clause though is the determining of what an election advertisement is. That has to be a key point and it is certainly one that is ambiguous and one that should be causing us all a bit of concern. Election advertisements can cover the opening and closing of a campaign and it can be the ones we pay for and in which we are restricted on what we can show on TV. Well we already have those provisions; that law is already there. What parties can spend on election advertising via the media is very clear. Spending is regulated and the regulations have been working. Certainly we have had some minor upsets in the past with some of the smaller parties and candidates feeling they were not getting as fair a go as others but the regulations have been working and I cannot see the need for us to be regulating further on that. 
So this provision has to be about what an election advertisement is. And there is the absolute belief that in election advertisements we will see Labour spending the Government’s money and spending it via Government departments to push its own advertising and its own message. But New Zealand has woken up to this and New Zealand will no longer be treated like a fool. It will no longer sit back and say that it is perfectly acceptable for the Labour Party to spread its message via the Government message—via the farce of “20 hours’ free” via the KiwiSaver messages we have seen and via the increase in communications budgets that has come through and that we are seeing in the estimates for next year. 
It is not a big surprise to anyone that there has been a huge leap in communications personnel in Government departments. I ask the Minister whether we understand in relation to this advertising by stealth that this was the sort of advertising that Clare Curran was going to do. One has to ask whether that is the sort of spin that was going to go through which the Labour Party wanted to push via Government departments. Evidence of that is coming out on a daily basis; we are hearing that that is the type of message that the Minister for the Environment wanted to be pushed through the ministry. He wanted his message of Labour Party propaganda to be pushed via that department and that is indeed what Clare Curran was employed for. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a call just to focus on clause 25A(2). This was inserted by the majority of Justice and Electoral Committee members over the objections of National members and states: “If an anonymous party donation exceeding $1000 is received by a party’s financial agent the financial agent must within 20 working days of receipt of the donation pay to the Electoral Commission the amount of the donation … less $1000.” That is the way the clause will work. 
But it is important to note that my Supplementary Order Paper suggests that the amount in question should be $4000 and I want to tell the Committee how I reach that figure. The officials’ advice for anonymous party donations was that something between the figure of $2000 and $5000 should be permitted. We have gone for $4000 for the simple fact that it is somewhere between $2000 and $5000. But it is important to recount just what exactly the Ministry of Justice advice said. The ministry’s advice was that there are strong reasons for setting the cap on anonymous donations at a somewhat higher level for political parties than for candidates and third parties. 
The reasons are reasonably straightforward. First the bill allows political parties obviously to spend significantly more on campaign expenditure than third parties and candidates. Setting the same threshold for donations across the board does not recognise this obvious fact. Secondly there are legitimate arguments around freedom of speech and privacy. Political parties traditionally obtain a certain level of support through donations and the argument essentially is that individuals should be able to give monetary support to a particular political party directly without being identified. The third matter—and it is obviously one that the National Party has been stressing time and time again in the course of this debate as we confront this bureaucratic nightmare—is the bureaucratic cost in compliance to political parties which also needs to be considered. In terms of cost to the Public Service the Electoral Commission has to handle all these anonymous donations and it imposes a bureaucratic cost that can be circumvented if parties receive a higher proportion of donations directly. That is also a factor that impacts on the cost to political parties. 
So for those reasons—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I hear Mr Woolerton squawking. It was the ministry’s advice not my advice I say to Mr Woolerton that the Committee should consider the threshold for anonymous donations to third parties and candidates at a lower level than that for political parties. That is why we have gone for that figure of $4000. 
I will say something next about clause 25C because it raises an important practical matter that the Minister may want to reflect on. Mr Ryall has spoken about the “Owen Glenn clause” clause 25C(1)(a) referring to that Labour Party luvvy from Rose Bay in that very safe Liberal seat of Wentworth held by the excellent Malcolm Turnbull. When I made that comment last week of course Mr Chauvel interjected and said: “Not for much longer”. Well I think Mr Chauvel will recognise that it is still a good safe Liberal seat. But I do not want to upset Mr Chauvel unnecessarily. 
Another provision needs to be referred to and that is subclause (b). I will focus on subclause (b) which deals with body corporates “incorporated outside New Zealand;”. My understanding is that a number of companies are incorporated in Australia although they may be based in New Zealand. I am not sure about Sky City; I have an idea that it may well be incorporated in Australia but that it gives to a number of political parties in New Zealand. I am just concerned that if one takes the interpretation “body corporate incorporated outside New Zealand” it could unwittingly catch a number of companies that are based in New Zealand and that currently give to both the National Party and the Labour Party and it could limit the amount they are able to give. So that is why we make that change. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair tena tatou katoa e te Whare. The Maori Party is willing at long last having listened to much of the debate to contribute as a starting point for probably the rest of the evening and we appreciate very much the comments made by a large number of the members across the Chamber in respect of the various parts of this bill. In opening up our statement the Maori Party would say that we support the need to uphold the concept of disclosure of party donations over a specified amount and I am specifically referring to Subpart 4 “Disclosure of third party donations”. We endorse the call for greater transparency as we would hope that this would ensure that political parties desist from the devious use of trusts or lawyers and their accounts to obscure the identity of donors. We also believe that giving is a transparent act and that it should be honoured as such. We support the changes to tighten the rules on anonymous donations with details to be disclosed to the Chief Electoral Officer. 
It has to be asked whose interests are served by covering up the use of wealth in a political party context. The general public’s? Yeah right! The practice of third-party donations being submerged under the existing categories has been a longstanding habit of many of the political parties in this Chamber and may likely continue. We note for example that there is a $10000 limit so what is to stop people from getting to the magic figure of $9999 as a way of getting around the intricacies of this law? 
So here is the thing: this legislation does not give the transparency we are after. Nor does it open up the trusts as Labour promised it would. We know that this bill requires a degree of electoral finance literacy and sophistication that some groups might not have and that will limit their participation. The Hon Bill English has over the past couple of weeks identified many of the loopholes he can see and he has identified many of the views as to how this law could be interpreted. So does it address the problem of hidden trusts? We say no. 
I remember the words of Martin Luther King. He said something like this: “It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the glaring noisiness of the so-called bad people but the appalling silence of the so-called good people.” So the question we might ask in this House is this: who will fess up now about the means and mechanisms by which the good people of this House know their party coffers bloom? Who would fess up? I do not hear too many calls because everybody is talking but that aside we all know that money has been secretly pocketed away in trust accounts with the assistance of lawyers and solicitors to make it all kosher if you like. In the context of political donations if people do not wish to be identified then perhaps they should not give. 
In a cultural sense and in the cultural context of koha before the intervention of the envelope which many of us use on marae now—the envelope and money—gifts were laid on marae for all to see. So before the use of the envelope and money it was a transparent exercise of putting things down in front of everybody so they could see it. I see this issue in very much the same way. 
Let us consider all the gifts of fine mats for example by our Pacific brothers and sisters the giving of whariki perhaps when a meeting house is opened or of tukutuku panels as a whanau or hapu contribution to a new house. That sort of generosity is apparent for all to see. It is all above board transparent and accountable. It is perhaps the model that the Government could have considered if it had had the courage to blow open the secret trusts as it originally said it would but unfortunately it has failed to do so. 
I turn briefly to Subpart 5 which is about the general rules on election advertising. The meaning of the term “election advertisement” is at the very heart of the adverse reaction from New Zealanders to this bill. New Zealanders like the 5000 who marched in protest last weekend and just like the many thousands who marched in the hikoi to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Bill were treated with an element of disdain and contempt by the Prime Minister. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call in this debate. I have spent most of my time watching it on the television and chuckling—at best chuckling and laughing but at worst shaking my head in absolute disbelief at some of the things I heard. I heard for example Judith Collins saying: “We don’t want our candidates to know where the money came from.” and “I don’t want to know.” Whatever! We could chisel that one on the side of Parliament Buildings and no one in the country would believe it. 
I want to give those National members of Parliament who are sitting here right now an opportunity. I ask the ones who are sitting here right now whether they received a donation for their campaign funds from the local branch of the Exclusive Brethren. Chris Tremain? No. Lindsay Tisch? He will not answer me. Kate Wilkinson? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: They did not give the member any money in Rangiora? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: None at all? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: Well there we go. They have no qualms whatsoever in giving us an answer here so what is the big deal about fulfilling the requirements of clause 24? What is the big deal? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Not a problem. 
RON MARK 
: It is not a problem. A lot of us down in Christchurch want to know from Nicky Wagner whether she received money from the Brethren to fight against Tim Barnett in Christchurch Central. Hello? No answer! Well there we go. She might not want to give us an answer in the House today as to whether she got any help from the Brethren in fighting Tim Barnett but this clause is eminently sensible and it does not seem to pose a problem for Kate Wilkinson and Chris Tremain. It is interesting that Lindsay Tisch would not answer is it not? But clause 24 does not seem to pose a problem for those people so any of the arguments that have been put up so far are spurious nonsense. 
I have heard the argument from Mr Nick Smith that MPs spend $64000 on promoting themselves. That is what he said. Well I say: “Shame on Nick Smith!” He should resign his portfolio and get the hell out of this House because he is not doing the job he was sent here to do. For a start he is wrong—he has misled the House. Tau Henare does not get $64000 a year to promote himself even if he wanted to do that. He gets $40000 because he is a list MP. But of course Judith Collins made her views of list MPs very clear in this Chamber just a short moment ago when she denigrated them. Rather derogatory statements came out of her mouth which tends to be par for the course for Judith Collins. 
Let us be clear about one thing. We have heard a lot of criticism from National Party speakers about people who spend taxpayers’ money and we have heard a lot of questions about the jobs an MP does. What is the job description? Well let me ask National members why their leader gets $233000 of taxpayers’ money a year when other party leaders in this House get $139000. Why? You see Mr Key is listed as the Leader of the Opposition. Pray tell me what the heck is the “Leader of the Opposition”? He leads nobody except his own gaggle. He does not have meetings regularly with Rodney Hide Jeanette Fitzsimons Winston Peters or Peter Dunne. He does not lead the Maori Party. He does not lead the ACT party. He does not lead a united caucus of Opposition parties. But he sticks his hand out and takes an extra $100000 of taxpayers’ money—not that he needs it—and does not say boo. And he gets a limo to boot. There is all this criticism from National members about Ministers running around in big limousines but their own damn leader rides around in one. And he gets an extra $100000. 
Where is the job description for the Leader of the Opposition? There is none. There is nothing. Talk about getting money under false pretences! If he were employed out there in the street and rocked up to the boss saying “Hey I want to work for you as the leader of the gang.” the boss would look around and say “But you’re the only one in the working gang.” And if he then said “And I want an extra $100000 a year for it.” the boss would tell him to blow off. He would say: “Get outta here! You’re joking—go away!”. Well here he is and not only does he tout himself as the great Leader of the Opposition but he gets an extra $100000 a year over and above the salary for that job. Do we hear him telling the media that? Pray tell me what consultation does he do as the great Leader of the Opposition with all the other leaders of the Opposition that means he deserves another $100000 of taxpayers’ money every year? None! 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I just wish to make a few comments and to table a new Subpart 9 in Part 2 which concerns the indexation of limits. But first of all I thank the Hon Tau Henare for his contribution. He raised the issue of the crayfish donation. I can tell him that a technical amendment does address the issue he raised. The donations made under Subpart 1A and Subpart 2 are donations of money only paid by way of cash cheque or bank draft. I think that clarifies the issue he raised. 
Judith Collins also spoke to clause 22 “Interpretation”. An amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson is on his Supplementary Order Paper and is one that has been accepted by the Government; we will no doubt vote on that in due course. Paula Bennett raised the matter of clause 55B which is the clause making it clear that Government departments Crown entities and State-owned enterprises cannot promote election advertisements and she asked whether that was just for a particular period. In fact those departments can never promote election advertisements and that is made clear for the purpose of the departments and also for the members in this Committee. 
As I said there is a new amendment in my name a proposed new Subpart 9 to Part 2 around the indexation of limits. The supbpart creates a mechanism whereby political party candidate or third party expenditure limits will increase at the rate of inflation rounded up to the next whole $1000. The total donation amounts that political parties and third parties can receive through the Electoral Commission will also increase at the same rate. This increase will occur once every 3 years by an Order in Council that will come into force on 1 October in the year before Parliament is due to expire. The threshold expenditure over which listing as a third party is required will also increase at the rate of inflation but will be rounded up to the next whole $100 which reflects the low end of this threshold. 
The mechanism that is being proposed here was originally proposed to the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and the royal commission in its report raised the issue and recommended that the Electoral Commission ensured that the expenditure permitted to each candidate kept pace with inflation. That was contained in that report going way back then. It was also contained in the departmental report on the bill from the Electoral Commission. The commission advised the Justice and Electoral Committee to adopt a proposal like that in relation to election expenditure. Mr Christopher Finlayson put forward an amendment to this end and I would like to thank him warmly for that. I asked officials to consider his amendment and to come back with a regime reflecting his proposal that is consistent with the broader drafting conventions. 
The amendment that I have put forward though does not index donation thresholds in this bill which was something that neither the royal commission nor the Electoral Commission recommended. However the amendment will mean that the amounts in the bill retain their value over time and I understand that a number of parties support this approach. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I will speak on a couple of amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill in the name of Christopher Finlayson first of all to clause 53(2)(d) and second to clause 103(1)(b). Both of these clauses are around what the Labour Party terms third parties—that is those people who are taking part in an election who are not political parties or candidates which is the wider group of New Zealanders the people to whom elections actually belong. However the Labour Party has called this group of people third parties and has set some rules around what they can and cannot do. 
In particular those two clauses first of all clause 52(2)(d) deal with the threshold over which a third party would have to register. We had a great deal of discussion about this issue because this is the opportunity for New Zealanders whether they are an individual or with an organisation to take part in an election campaign. In its wisdom the Labour Party—aided by the Greens of course—decided that the threshold of either group spending or individual spending should be $12000. 
Quite interestingly the Electoral Commission disagreed with that decision at the Justice and Electoral Committee. It said that the threshold should be set at $40000. Further the commission had given some very serious consideration as to why we should be setting a threshold. I will refer to the very thoughtful work that the commission did which I have to say was totally ignored by the Government. 
The commission had two reasons for suggesting the level of $40000. First of all that amount would mean that a campaign could be run using say a number of radio stations newspapers or magazines. A group an organisation or an individual could run a reasonable sort of a campaign—nothing major but a reasonable sort of a campaign—for a reasonably small amount of money and not have to go through the hoops of registering as a third party. 
Secondly the commission said that an individual or group spending more than $40000 would be easily recognised by it. It said that that would be easily detected in the community without there needing to be any sort of major bureaucracy hunting through community newspapers and checking up on what groups were doing throughout New Zealand. The amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson first of all to clause 53(2)(d) changes that threshold to $40000 in line with the recommendation from the commission. 
Then of course we had the spending limit for a third party which is in clause 103(1)(b). Again the commission using that same process and rationale recommended an expenditure cap of between $250000 and $300000 overall. The commission had worked out quite carefully with some research that that amount allowed for say a 2-week campaign by an organisation. For instance the commission gave an example of a campaign that was targeting young people with cinema ads. The commission had a very clear rationale behind its suggestions. They were sensible suggestions and Christopher Finlayson’s amendment addresses those suggestions. 
But that was not good enough for the Greens. The Greens said in the select committee that that sort of expenditure might drown out their voices and they did not think that was reasonable. 
Metiria Turei 
: Don’t tell fibs. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is not telling fibs. The member said that: that it might challenge some of the smaller parties in Parliament who do not spend that amount of money. We had select committee members making decisions on what third parties should be able to spend in an election campaign based on committee members’ ability or inability to raise funds for their own campaigns. I think that is outrageous. I think that the commission actually had a very sensible rationale behind its suggestions around the expenditure threshold and the expenditure caps for third parties. 
It is totally outrageous that a member of a select committee should be using his or her own position to manipulate the levels for third parties and their ability to take part in an election campaign. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I have moved a number of amendments in my name in respect of the returns that need to be made by candidates. The legislation provides that candidates’ financial agents can provide returns and certification to the authorities. As we know a financial agent can be the candidate or an appointed person. Frankly I believe that any undertakings or certifications given in respect of a candidate’s campaign should be signed by the candidates themselves and not the financial agent if the financial agent is someone other than the candidate. I have moved a number of amendments providing that in respect of a candidate’s campaign—both expenditure and donations returns—it should be the candidate who puts it on the line by attesting and signing the document; it should not be the financial agent if the financial agent is separate from the candidate. I have made a number of amendments on that because I think that when it comes to a candidate’s campaign the candidate should be the person who puts it on the line rather than the financial agent as proposed here. 
There are a number of other amendments in the name of our colleague Mr Chris Finlayson that I would also like to support. Those amendments boil down to the issue of disclosure. It is very important for the public to have confidence in the electoral system and that is one of the goals of this legislation. One of the purposes set out in Part 1 is to try to improve public confidence in the electoral system which is not necessarily the case with this legislation. But there are requirements for the Electoral Commission to make available for public inspection lists of third party donations candidate donations and party donations. The Electoral Finance Bill requires that those donations be published in a manner that the Chief Electoral Officer considers appropriate. I do not know whether anyone in this Chamber has ever sought to see that information but one has to go to the Electoral Commission to get it. For the candidate spending returns one has to go to the Chief Electoral Officer to see them. I have done that regularly after elections. I go down there and check the opposition candidates’ spending returns as everyone else does together with their donor returns but there is only one spot to do that and that is the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. 
I have moved a number of amendments to improve transparency and the availability of information so that those returns particularly those relating to candidate and electoral district campaigns should be available for inspection in the offices of the registrars of electors. People in a local community who want to see that information should not have to travel to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer in Wellington to get it. I have moved a number of amendments which I hope other parties will support so that the Chief Electoral Officer when it comes to candidates’ donation returns and spending returns should be able to make those available in the offices of registrars of electors which are the nearest electoral-related offices for most ordinary New Zealanders. People would be able to go to the registrar and actually look at the returns which would give a level of scrutiny we have never had in the electoral system before. I think that parties across the board would want to support that. 
I also propose that in respect of party returns they too should be made available in the offices of registrars of electors. 
Hon Member 
: Hard copies. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Hard copies of those returns should be made available so that ordinary people can go down and look at them. If one of the purposes of this legislation is to enhance public knowledge of donations then a hard copy of that information should be available for ordinary people to go and look at. Right now it is just not easy. I think the Electoral Commission is making some information available on its website now that never used to be available but when it comes to the returns of individual candidates they are not available on the website and one has to come to Wellington to see them. I think that Parliament should support my amendment in respect of that change. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I recognise that you are of a mind to consider that this debate should be concluded but I make the point to you that the National Party has prepared a large number of amendments to this particular part. I can tell you Madam Chairperson that we have proposed numerous amendments that have not yet been spoken on. You will know Madam Chairperson how the form is with these things. Parties can choose to put up frivolous amendments that see us voting for hours and hours but that has not happened in this debate. We have put up genuine amendments— 
Hon Annette King 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister in the chair may laugh—by and large that is what her party is doing to the whole of the New Zealand public with this bill anyway—but the reality is that the Government is picking up some of the amendments that have been moved. The Minister has mentioned that this evening. 
A number of our people have prepared contributions on each of the amendments. We are not seeking an opportunity to speak just for the sake of it. I do not think it would be at all reasonable for anyone to accuse any of our speakers to date of having made speeches of a general nature. They have confined themselves to particular clauses. 
I know that Mr Tisch wishes to speak particularly on a matter brought up by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and I think that the points the institute wanted to make should be aired in the Committee. There is an amendment that would give effect to some of the recommendations the institute made and perhaps as with many of the other amendments the Government may be moved to support it. 
Although it may be the desire of some in the Committee to see the debate closed down I would argue strongly that the comments in the debate so far have been of a very specific nature on each occasion. We have made an effort to make sure that this debate is not seen as frivolous. It seems to me to be entirely unparliamentary to shut down this debate after such a short period of time. We have heard— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have heard the member; thank you very much. I think you have made your points quite clearly. We have had 27 speeches and there have certainly been a lot of speeches covering the whole spectrum of this part. I am now going to put the closure. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the point of order on this matter? I have made my decision on it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It is following Gerry Brownlee’s point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I have made the decision. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Can I just make the point that I have heard your point of order and I have made my decision. If it is on the same point— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I would not dare to relitigate it with you Madam Chairperson. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Madam Speaker you have been recalled to rule on whether the question should be put. There have been speeches and points of order against putting the question after 27 speeches which I consider have covered the debate on Part 2. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It is interesting that the number 27 comes up because that is how many amendments the National Party is moving on this particular part. I make the point that a number of those amendments are being agreed to by the Government. 
National has taken the time on this bill to produce a single Supplementary Order Paper in order that the House might expedite its business in a reasonable manner and so that no surprises would be dropped on the Table at various times. Our hope was that that approach would be respected during the progress of this debate and that the opportunity to speak would be given to all of the members on our side of the Chamber who had prepared speeches on each of those amendments. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding last evening that led to a bit of a change in that tactic today. But I do not think it is particularly useful that we go down that track too much further because this is far too important a bill. 
So here we have a situation where at about 7.35 this evening—some 15 minutes ago—the Minister stood in the Chamber to announce the introduction of new Subpart 9 a whole new part. The Minister in her announcement that there would be an extra subpart dropped into the bill said there would be plenty of time for all parties to debate the matter. Ten minutes later after the Minister’s own speech and one speech from this side of the Chamber there was a closure motion that looked as though it was about to be accepted. 
All we are imploring of you Madam Speaker is the opportunity for the people on our side of the Chamber who have taken these amendments clause by clause and prepared the arguments in favour of them to be able to present those arguments to the Committee. I would also say that if there were to be a look at the proportional arrangement for the contributions on this very important bill then it would be seen that we are certainly being sold well short in proceedings to date. I ask Madam Speaker that you consider whether there might be a little more time devoted to this particular part in order that the House might deal with the entire bill in a seemly manner. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It appears to me that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I just heard Mr Brownlee say that we need to continue this debate because the National Party put up one Supplementary Order Paper— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Last night. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —last night. The member has obviously not been informed that over the tea break Tony Ryall dropped a large number of amendments on the Committee. That is not in line with what the member said at all. He dropped them on the Committee in an endeavour to have a filibuster and to delay the proceedings of this House which is something that his leader and deputy leader said he would not do. I also need to say that I took the word of the junior National whip who spoke to us at the tea break. He said that there was no intention to filibuster but that he had a few more speakers. He obviously was not aware that Tony Ryall was going to spend his tea break writing amendments. 
There is not one Supplementary Order Paper as the member said. I have moved an amendment tonight in my name based on the amendment from the National member Christopher Finlayson. It has been available in this House under his amendment and nowhere did I say that I expected long debate on it. I read what was in it and people have been able to debate that part of Christopher Finlayson’s amendment right through this debate on Part 2 if they wished to do so. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The Committee really has been put in a position—and it has now had this clearly demonstrated—where it can spend time either debating the substance of the bill or voting on trivia about the bill. I think that to do the latter would be unfortunate. But given the way that the part was so unfairly concluded last evening I think it is only reasonable that a demonstration was given of the opportunities that do exist to make a nonsense of the process. We are not happy with the process of this bill; there is no question about that. We do not want to make that process look even worse by the way the House conducts it. We would appreciate there being some more time to debate this particular part. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 We began on this part last evening and we have spent all of the time available today up until now on this part. As far as we in New Zealand First are concerned the issues have been fully traversed. We know full well that the National Party is not happy with this bill—and has never been happy with it—and that it has gone to extraordinary lengths out in public with street marches and other things to get rid of this bill. Now National is resorting to trying to filibuster in order to stop the bill’s progress. We in New Zealand First do not think that that is right and we think that the motion should be put. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to made a brief comment about what the Minister said about my Subpart 2B which she said could have been debated in the context of Part 2. What she has in fact done is pick up a little bit of my Supplementary Order Paper dealing with indexation and include it in the bill as Subpart 9. So that is Subpart 9 of Part 2. That does not deal with many other matters and it is a separate part yet to be debated. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 We have had some 150 minutes of debate on this particular part. There have been 27 calls in total 16 of which have come from the National Party. We feel that those members have had ample opportunity to traverse and canvass all of the issues on Part 2 that they have raised. I point out that only five of those calls have been taken by Labour members. In fact since 4.30 just two of those calls have been Labour calls. So ample opportunity has been given to the Opposition to raise its issues on Part 2 of the Electoral Finance Bill. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I draw your attention Madam Speaker to Speakers’ ruling 60/7 a Speakers’ ruling of some longstanding—Statham 1931. Initially the ruling states that “The [chairperson] is the sole judge …” but the last sentence states: “I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” 
Part 2 is the most substantial part in the bill. It has over 120 clauses. There are a significant number of amendments and in the view of the Opposition it would indeed be a harsh call if this closure motion were to be taken when only about 14 Opposition members have had a chance to participate. As Mr Brownlee has set out there is very structured debate from our side. We have very clearly allocated clauses to individual people so there will be significant omissions in the debate if the closure is to be taken at this point. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 60/8 and particularly to the last sentence which I shall read out: “The Chair also has regard to questions of relevance and repetition.” I was in the Chamber last evening and this afternoon. The speeches have been relevant and there has been no repetition. A number of us have been in the Chamber all this time but we have been unable to speak so I would be very grateful if you would reconsider the Chair’s decision. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. We have heard several comments from those who have called for and supported the recalling of the Speaker. I respect what members are saying in terms of the importance of this matter. However as members do know it is a tradition in this House—an extraordinarily important one—that when the House is in Committee it is Speaker’s ruling 60/7 that guides us in these matters unless there are extraordinary circumstances when it should not. 
The Chairperson has to be—and always is whoever it is—the sole judge of whether the closure should be accepted. I have heard comments from all sides. There has been considerable debate. I have also watched the debate in terms of what is happening but my judgment in that sense does not matter; I follow the Speaker’s ruling. The Chairperson is obviously the person who is responsible for listening to the debate and is therefore in the best position to be able to judge it. It is not for the Speaker to second-guess that. Of course it is a matter for the House. Proportionality has also been mentioned by Mr Brownlee and that is an important matter. That comes into play when if the Committee of the whole House does not agree with the decision then when it is voted upon it does not vote for the closure. That is the will of the House and it is the will of the House that must prevail in these circumstances also. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has to be a fresh point of order. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is very fresh. I make this point of order carefully and with respect to the Chair. I was the deputy chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout the consideration of this bill. The Chair herself was a very active member of the committee and indeed was very active when dealing with Part 2. Given that this is a procedural motion that is very closely tied to Part 2 I wonder whether it would be a counsel of wisdom for that particular Chair to recuse herself when dealing with procedural motions like this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I find it an extraordinary suggestion that members of Parliament because they have been involved in a select committee should not therefore participate in the debate. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have made my ruling. The member should just reflect on that and how it would actually be used in the future if what he suggests should apply. All members in this House are equal. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Election campaigns ( 
continued 
)  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 to omit “third party” in each place where it appears and substitute “interest group” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is to clause 22 in the name of Christopher Finlayson on Supplementary Order Paper 166. All those in favour please say “Aye” to the contrary “No”. The “Noes” have it. A party vote called for? The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is slight confusion here. You put the vote and there was a voice call. There was a call in favour and there was a call opposed. It appears now that some of those opposing may have changed their vote. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This is an amendment that the Government has agreed to support. It is one of Christopher Finlayson’s amendments. There was a voice call on our side where the person may not have understood that we are supporting this amendment and we will be voting for it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Is there a Standing Order that states that the party vote has to follow the voice vote. Oh is there not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are taking the voice vote again Mr Brownlee. Just to clarify the amendment for everyone we will read it out again. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 22 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 22A(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) the amount “$5000” and substitute the amount “$5001”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “10” and substitute the number “11”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “10” and substitute the number “11”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(3) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “10” and substitute the number “11”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25A to omit “the amount of the donation or its value” in each place where it occurs and substitute “the value of the donation” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “21”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25A(2) be agreed to: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.Agreement not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “21”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(3) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “21”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25C to omit “the amount of the donation or its value” in each place where it occurs and substitute the words “the value of the donation” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25C(1)(a) be agreed to: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Agreement not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25C(1) be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(d)an individual making a donation comprising a whole or in parts funds contributed by 1 or more persons who are not New Zealand citizens or registered as an elector. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25C(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “21”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Subpart 1A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28D be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(c)publish in major newspapers and the  
NZ Gazette 
 that information covered in 28D(a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28E(2)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Crown bank account” and substitute the words “Plunket Society bank account”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28E(3)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Crown bank account” and substitute the words “Plunket Society bank account”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28F(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)any sum paid by the Electoral Commission under 28E(2)(b) or 28E(3)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28G(3)(a) be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after (a) and substitute the words “the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(1)(d) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “to the Crown bank account”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(2)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “quarterly” and substitute the word “monthly”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(2)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the number “3”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 29(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “A financial agent of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 29(4) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the financial agent and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 32(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 32(3) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5) The Chief Electoral Officers will make a copy of each return available at the office of the Registrar of Electors for each respective electorate’s candidates. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 38 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 41 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4) The Electoral Commission will make available for public inspection a copy of every return and report referred to in subsection (1) at the office of each Registrar of Electors in each electoral district 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 50(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “$40000” and substitute the amount “$41000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 53 be agreed to: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 55(1) to insert after the word “published” the words “during the regulated period” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 55(1) to omit the words “ or appears to encourage or persuade” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit and substitute new clause 55B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 56 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 57 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 58 to omit paragraph (b) from the definition of  
candidate activity 
 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 58 to omit paragraph (c) from the definition of  
candidate activity 
 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 62(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “$20000” and substitute the amount “$50000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 62(1)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “$40000” and substitute the amount “$60000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 66 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 72(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “candidate’s financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75(3) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(5)The Chief Electoral Officer will make available for public inspection a copy of every filed return under section 72 from candidates for each electoral district available in the respective offices of Registrar of Electors. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 76(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “$40000” and substitute the amount “$41000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 80 to omit paragraph (b) of the definition of  
party activity 
 and substitute new paragraph (b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 80 to omit paragraph (d) of the definition of  
party activity 
 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 81 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 84 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 92 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 97 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)The Electoral Commission will make available for public inspection a copy of every return and report referred to in subsection (1) at the office of each Registrar of Electors. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 99 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 103 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 106A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to insert new clause 106B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 111 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 112 be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 114(1) be agreed to: 
to delete the amount “$40000” and substitute the amount “$41000”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 115(2) be agreed to: 
to delete the amount “$40000” and substitute the amount “$41000”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subpart: 
Subpart 9—Indexation of amount 
117AAmounts may be increased by Order in Council triennially 
(1)The Governor-General may by Order in Council in the manner provided in subsection (2) amend any of the following provisions by increasing the amounts specified in those provisions: 
(a)section 53(2)(d) (which relates to the maximum expenses that can be incurred by a promoter described in that provision): 
(b)section 62 (which relates to the maximum amount of a candidate’s election expenses): 
(c)section 103 (which relates to the maximum amount of a third party’s election expenses): 
(d)section 103 (which relates to the maximum amount of a third party’s election expenses). 
(2)An Order in Council made under this section may be made only once between one general election and the following general election and— 
(a)in the case of the first Order in Council must come into force on 1 October 2010 and must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 31 December 2007 and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June 2010 but— 
(i)in the case of the amount specified in section 53(2)(d) rounded up to the next whole hundred dollars; and 
(ii)in the case of the other amounts rounded up to the next whole thousand dollars: 
(b)in the case of each subsequent Order in Council must come into force on 1 October in the year before Parliament is due to expire and must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June in the year in which the previous Order in Council was made under this section and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June in the year in which the new Order in Council is made but— 
(i)in the case of the amount specified in section 53(2)(d) rounded up to the next whole hundred dollars; and 
(ii)in the case of the other amounts rounded up to the next whole thousand dollars: 
(3)Despite subsection (2) if an Order in Council is due to come into force on a 1 October that occurs during the regulated period (for example if there is an early general election in the year before Parliament is due to expire) the Order in Council comes into force on the expiry of the regulated period. 
(4)In this section CPI means the consumers price index-all groups published by Statistics New Zealand. 
117BStatus of Order in Council made under section117A 
(1)Every Order in Council made under section 117A and laid before the House of Representatives under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 expires on the close of the period of 12 months commencing with the date on which it was so laid unless it is validated and confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed before that date. 
(2)Every Order in Council made under section 117A has the force of law as if it was enacted by this Act. 
(3)The validity of any Order in Council made under section 117A is not affected by reason only of the repeal of an Act of Parliament validating and confirming it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland; Field. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland; Field. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 2A Chief Electoral Prosecutor 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Christopher Finlayson has proposed an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 to insert a new Part 2A. The Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to this amendment. Therefore it is out of order. No question will be put on new Part 2A and it is not separately debatable. However the veto certificate may be debated in the context of the next part. Copies of the certificate are available at the Table. 
New Part 2B Indexation of amounts 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: New Part 2B is proposed by Chris Finlayson and is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I wish to speak to proposed Part 2B which is entitled “Indexation of amounts” and is not to be confused with the new Subpart 9 entitled “Indexation of amount” which was proposed by the Minister of Justice a few minutes ago. Against the vote of the Opposition the vote passed so a new clause 117A and a new clause 117B form part of the bill as it goes through the House. 
It is important to note that what the Minister proposes is but a subset of what is contained in my Part 2B. In particular I refer to clause 117D on my Supplementary Order Paper 166. If one pays close attention to that provision one sees that it covers not only the expenditure of candidates and parties but also donations by candidates interest groups or third parties and party donations which are covered by clause 22 and it covers other material not included in the Minister’s new Subpart 9. 
The other point that needs to be said is that the methodology adopted in Subpart 9 for the type of expenditure embraced by clause 53(2)(d) clause 62 clause 84 and clause 103 is quite different from what is proposed in my Part 2B. The Minister has suggested that the amounts for the clauses covered in clause 117A may be amended or increased by an Order in Council promulgated on a triennial basis. I know that Mr Foss in particular wants to say a couple of things about that. My indexation mechanism is quite different. It is set out in clause 117E and with respect it is a much simpler and more sensible proposal than that proposed by the Minister on her Supplementary Order Paper. 
Why do we propose this new Part 2B? We say that all the spending donation and registration limits in the bill—not just some of them but all of them—should be adjusted for inflation using the CPI. Indeed the Electoral Commission recommended this kind of mechanism and I understand that it is the practice in Australia. I do not think Parliament is necessarily split on the issue of how stupid it is that for example candidates have been able to spend only $20000 on candidate campaigns since 1993. If one feeds in the CPI over that period then I understand that the amount is likely to be between $25000 and $30000 and that reflects the reality of campaigning. 
There was a discussion about this issue in the Justice and Electoral Committee and not surprisingly the majority did not want to debate the issue properly but just skirted over it which is why we are debating it in the Committee tonight. The argument that was made was that when one takes into account the expenditure of all the various candidates in the field of the 2005 general election one finds that only a reasonably small number spent between $15000 and $20000. A lot of people spent very small sums of money. Be that as it may the reality of the matter is that when one looks at the expenditure of say candidates from the National and Labour parties New Zealand First a couple of the Greens and the ACT party one sees that the expenditure incurred by them was somewhere between $15000 and $20000 on average. The National Party says that if one is going to apply that kind of standard to candidate expenditure then as a matter of principle it follows that one should also apply it to the complex donations regime set out in the bill and one should also apply it to other forms of expenditure that are incurred. 
That is the rationale behind this. It is a CPI adjustment not only to the limits referred to by the Minister but also to others. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I would like to raise a few points and to ask for some clarification from the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King. I have read Mr Finlayson’s amendments and his indexation methodology which I thought was very good as well as his triennial approach to this matter. 
I ask the Minister to respond to this. I note that in her proposed new clause 117A(4) she clarifies what CPI means. But I think this can be read in two ways. For example clause 117A(2)(a) states that an increase “must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 31 December 2007 and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June 2010”. 
The clarification I seek from the Minister is whether there is a cumulative effect or whether she is defining further the change in the CPI over 3 years. Under the Minister’s common-sense test if the CPI for the quarter ending 31 December 2007 was 1 percent and the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June 2010 was 1 percent—which is how the public understands the CPI—the percentage change between those two amounts was zero. I am looking forward to the Minister clarifying that matter. 
Could she further define in her amendment what she means and how she defines the CPI and indices? It is open to interpretation and it could be open to error. Clause 117A(2)(b) talks about each subsequent Order in Council and the same definitions are used. Again I ask for clarification in relation to the CPI and indices. The amendment talks about the quarter ending 30 June in the year of the previous Order in Council and it is compared with the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June in the following year. Again there is no mention of a cumulative CPI of the compounding of it which is common sense. When members of the public read the CPI they understand the percentage terms—3 percent 4 percent or whatever it might be. As I have noted in the Minister’s two examples if the CPI is 1 percent for each of the two quarters there is no percentage change. If the two indices are 112 and 132 then of course the difference between the two percentage indices is 20 over 112. I ask the Minister to clarify that. 
I also ask the Minister to talk to clause 117A(3) which the Minister said earlier replaces Mr Finlayson’s various amendments. Well I actually do not think that it does because it does not cover nearly as many of the various monetary amounts. To me the provisions in clause 117A(2) and clause 117A(3) mean that if there is an early election the campaign spend amount from the previous election is locked in. Is that correct? I ask the Minister to clarify whether an early election locks in all those amounts from the previous election. Let us have further clarification. 
Let us look at the amounts we are concerned with here. Candidate election expenses are currently limited to $20000. Earlier the Minister noted that that amount has not changed since 1996 when it was set. Well if we applied the CPI changes since then the common-sense test—2 percent on average a year so over 10 years a total of about 20 percent—the $20000 is probably worth something like $13000-odd in today’s money. If we are really being open and transparent and trying to make these measures relevant to 2007 surely we should look at all amounts and make them true fair and valid in today’s money as opposed to something 10 years out of date. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I will pick up from where my colleague Craig Foss left off because what I do not understand about the Minister’s proposal in new clause 117A in Part 2 is why she has chosen just some of the financial quantities spelt out in the bill to be CPI adjusted. It seems curious that a number of the specific amounts mentioned in the bill are not to be CPI adjusted so I ask the Minister to explain that. This is a serious request I make of her and if the “head prefect” could just leave her alone for a moment I would appreciate that. 
Annette King came into this Parliament in 1984 with me and together we have seen a lot of legislation in this Parliament. I read this bill in detail for the first time this afternoon and I have to say that I am deeply shocked—deeply shocked. I do not have the right word to describe it but I find it to be one of the most offensive pieces of legislation I have seen in the time since she and I came into this House together. I have a lot of regard for Annette King as a Minister. I say that openly but I want her to listen to this. Why is she adjusting by the movement in the CPI only certain of the quanta? She has specified the maximum expenses incurred by the promoter described in the provision in clause 53(2)(d) as well as the amount of a candidate’s election expenses a party’s election expenses and a third party’s election expenses. But a number of other specified amounts are covered in clauses 22 and 22A of the bill and I could nominate a number of other clauses where the Minister specifies quanta. Yet those are not CPI adjusted and it seems to me there is no logic as to why some are CPI adjusted and others are not. 
I come back to what my colleague Craig Foss was saying: the way in which the provision in new clause 117A is spelt out as to how the amounts should be CPI adjusted does not cater for an early election. The provision has been made very specific to apply to actual years. I mean it is as though this legislation is designed to be in place for only 3 years. If the Government intends this legislation to be ongoing why is the CPI adjustment not calculated every year so that in any year that an election is called the figures are automatically adjusted? The clause does not spell that out. It states that the Order in Council will come into force on 1 October 2010 and must reflect the change in the CPI between 31 December 2007 and the quarter ending 30 June 2010. That is very specific to one time period. 
Craig Foss also mentioned that the Government should be serious about the amount that candidates can spend. The $20000 limit I think was set back in 1993. I had the library check out for me this afternoon the cumulative increase in the CPI which since then has been 35 percent—35 percent. So what we could buy in 1993 with $20000 is now 35 percent less than it was then. In other words what Mr Foss said was exactly right: it is the equivalent now of being able to spend $13000 then. All I put to the Minister is the question of why this whole thing is not approached more openly and more honestly. 
What frightened me this afternoon I tell the Minister—and I will be straight up with her—is that I heard her and other people say that the thing that has driven them is the activity of the Exclusive Brethren. Do members know what disgusts me about that? It is the fact that demonising a religious group is what Hitler did to the Jews in the early stages of his rule. He demonised the Jews. All I say to the Minister the Hon Annette King my colleague who came into Parliament with me in 1984 is that that was not the final solution but it was the early stages of demonising a small group of people. And I ask her to take a more open view of all of this. If she is going to go with the provisions that she has in new clause 117A then I ask her at least to make it an honest approach to indexing the figures properly and to indexing all the figures not just a small group of them. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are debating a very narrow part. 
TIM GROSER 
: I also want to speak to the indexation provisions and I think given the interventions of my colleagues I do not need to go through the technical side of them. I do not think I need to repeat the very interesting questions that my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith put to the Minister as to why Labour has gone in such a piecemeal fashion towards what is clearly a sensible position. But I really want to use this quite technical subject as a way of drawing out a couple of underlying themes about the whole bill. 
In the first place the purpose behind the National Party in the name of Mr Finlayson putting forward the indexation provision in Part 2B is clearly all about trying to impart precision to an area of the law that is central to the political process. And that strikes at the very heart of the reasons why we have so many difficulties with this bill because having precision fundamentally matters when it comes to the legal process. We believe that New Zealanders do not want to see the electoral contest which should be an open contest set out between the major parties and the smaller parties on traditional grounds settled through the court system. Indeed the lack of precision on all this takes my memory back to what became the New Zealand public’s opinion of the America’s Cup in the late 1980s. People around my age will remember that it stopped being a race held on the water then and became a race conducted through the legal process. That is why we put precision into this provision. 
The second point is that when I heard Dr Cullen the Deputy Prime Minister say this afternoon that he noted with amusement that “the Opposition keeps saying the law is badly drafted then opposes every amendment to it.” I thought that he was clearly confused about the situation because that is factually incorrect. But he is in very good company of course with other senior Ministers of the Government in being confused about the process. In a sense that also showed I thought the deeply partisan approach that has bedevilled this bill and that lay at the heart of our deep misgivings about this departure from the traditional multipartisan approach to electoral issues. I would make the assumption that although this provision was as my colleague Mr Finlayson says skirted through in the Justice and Electoral Committee my instinct would be that the vast majority of members would realise that the lack of indexation was clearly a nonsense. To have an amount set out in 1993 for heaven’s sake—that is almost 15 years ago—and to make no adjustment to it made no sense from anybody’s point of view. 
Had this whole bill started from the premise that we could have a multipartisan sensible conversation amongst the senior politicians of the parties I think we would have very quickly found a lot of agreement including on the very issue that we are addressing here in clause 117E relating to indexation. So the whole political philosophy the whole starting point for this bill is illustrated by that essentially technical provision which is strictly neutral in terms of its political impacts on all parties and which I would suspect as I said every member of the House if given a truth drug would say was utterly sensible. Why would we want to have amounts set out 15 years ago? Heavens alive in terms of compound interest everyone knows that a number that accumulates only at 2 percent doubles every 30 years. We have had 15 years of that figure— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: 35 years. 
TIM GROSER 
: Yes 35. I suspect it could be even more than that. If no adjustment is made to the figure the real value of people’s ability to go out and campaign will be further reduced. We no longer live in an era in which we campaign on a soapbox. It actually does cost money using modern technology and using the sophisticated processes that our electorates expect us to use to conduct an effective campaign. 
I would have thought it was pretty elementary that the failure to make any adjustment for price movements over a 15-year period was in nobody’s interest to maintain. But precisely because of the mindset that has poisoned this whole bill from the start we have never had an honest discussion on this issue. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think the Committee would really want to move on so it can debate Part 3. We are debating a very narrow part and not very many of the contributors have kept to the point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just out of interest for the benefit of you and other members of the Committee you mentioned that we might go to Part 3. If I have a quick look at Part 3 I see just off the top of my head about 30 clauses in it. When we dive into the bill we see that Part 3 “Miscellaneous” deals with general provisions penalties etc. It has a lot of numbers in it a lot of dates and a lot of other small procedural things—references etc—in it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the member trying to explain to the Committee and to me that more discussion on Part 2B is necessary? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I am. We can either have a full discussion on this part—which the Government of course does not want; I accept that—or have the same sort of truncated discussion on Part 3 then spend 5 or 6 hours voting on various amendments that it would be opportune for us to make. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have been following the debate closely and Christopher Finlayson raised serious issues but I have to say that members of the Opposition have been debating my amendment to add Subpart 9 which has already been passed. They should have discussed that when we were debating Part 2. They have got it wrong; they have not debated the part they are supposed to debate. It is obvious they have not done any homework on this part and I do not think we can take seriously their wish to continue debating it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The Hon Annette King tries to put across in a plausible way the argument that the Opposition got it wrong. Everyone in the country knows that this bill is a mess and it will come as no surprise to anybody to learn that somehow we were supposed to have been debating new Subpart 9 while we were working through Part 2. This is the sort of shifty tricky stuff that the Government has done throughout this debate. 
The reality is that the smiling Deputy Leader of the House knows that there was some understanding about how long this bill would be debated for. Labour of course has brought out the jackboots and kicked that agreement to one side and is now surprised that the Opposition wants to discuss factual matters that relate to Mr Simpson’s—sorry Mr Finlayson’s—Supplementary Order Paper 166. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Gallagher it is quarter to 10 and you know that that sort of outburst is not allowed. I would not want you to leave the Chamber but you understand that you should not have done that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That was my point of order. We were on a point of order and despite the length of the dinner break that someone takes he should not have that sort of outburst. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand and that is what— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A new one? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Let me rule on the first one please. I am satisfied from hearing from Mr Brownlee—and I agree—that with one exception we have not debated new Part 2B. We have had quite a number of speakers on it but most members have not debated it so I guess we need to hear some more. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw to your attention that the specific questions I was asking the Minister related to the issues outlined in proposed Part 2B in respect of CPI adjustment. If you check Part 2B you will see there a number of clauses that are proposed to be indexed. I was asking the Minister why given that under her clause 117A which had been passed she had agreed to certain clauses being indexed she was refusing to address the other financial amounts specified in the various clauses detailed in clause 117D of Part 2B on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper. On that issue we have had no answer and I believe that we deserve some answers on why those quanta are not CPI adjusted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not disagree with you Dr Smith and that is why I am allowing further debate on the part. Given the issues raised in the points of order I am sure the next contributor will discuss indexation. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just a bit confused about your ruling. Are you saying that if Opposition members debate the wrong part and cannot get themselves organised to debate the right question before the Committee you will then allow them to continue making speeches until they finally get their act together and debate the right part? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Don’t question the Chair you pompous dick! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member complained a moment ago about being interrupted and Mr Chairperson you almost threw a member out of the Chamber for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will not deal with that one in that way either. I think we all understand—one two and that is it. There will be no more noise during a point of order. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Is the position now that it is possible to speak to the wrong part— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —then when the closure is sought for the Chair to rule that members can keep on talking until they get to the right one? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Funnily enough it is possible to do anything but whoever is in the Chair is the sole judge of whether points being raised or debate being had is relevant and whether it should continue. I do not need any reasons for doing that. But I have heard sufficient argument in the points of order to convince me that it would not be a bad idea to hear further speakers on new Part 2B. That is why I am calling Chris Tremain. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to debate new Part 2B “Indexation of amounts” an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 as presented to the Committee by Chris Finlayson. He has presented a number of amendments to the Committee tonight all relevant all to the point and all important to this wider debate. I congratulate Mr Finlayson on that particular effort which has been fantastic. 
I focus on the CPI and its importance to the relevant thresholds across all the different spends that this bill is proposing. The two thresholds are the $20000 threshold available to candidates and secondly the $120000 threshold available to third parties. Both of these thresholds are addressed by the amendment put forward by Chris Finlayson tonight so I will pay specific attention to it. 
The CPI has a huge impact on these thresholds. Let us go back to 1993 when the threshold for a candidate was $20000. The threshold is no different today but using the CPI to inflate the value of $20000 to today’s dollars it is $27000. So a candidate in the election in 2008 using the CPI as proposed by Chris Finlayson would be looking at a spend of $27000. That is a significant difference in the ability of candidates to get their message across so it is very important that that issue is addressed. 
To show what an important impact the CPI can have I use a different example the Buy Kiwi Made campaign which is being run by the Government and which happens to have a threshold that is significantly higher than this one. The spend on that campaign is not $20000 but $6.3 million. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Good or bad? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is a good spend. But let us look at the awareness threshold of consumers when that campaign came in: 27 percent of consumers understood the campaign. We spent $6.3 million to get to an awareness level of 39 percent of consumers. The point I am making is that we have had a huge level of spending—$6.3 million—to get a message across and the level of awareness has hardly increased. 
How could we get an awareness message across to a wider audience on $20000? If the threshold is not measured against the CPI over a period of time that would reduce our ability to effectively communicate a message to our audience. It is simple marketing. A candidate is out there trying to create awareness. Over time if the level of the threshold whether it is $120000 or $20000 is not measured against the CPI then that candidate is unable to communicate the same message at the same level that he or she would have otherwise been able to communicate. This is an important part of this amendment. This amendment has been justly brought forward by Chris Finlayson and it is one that we should pay attention to. 
Another key point is that the CPI threshold level is exacerbated by the extension of the electoral period to 1 January. Previously the threshold of $20000 could be used over a 3-month period which worked out at about $8300 per month. If we extend it to a 9-month period then we are down to about a $2000 spend per month. If we bring the CPI into that remembering that our $20000 is about $13993 in 1993 dollars then our average spend without the CPI inflation adjustment is just reduced and reduced so getting a campaign message across to a wider audience becomes increasingly difficult. That is totally unfair and that is why I support Chris Finlayson’s amendment to insert new Part 2B “Indexation of amounts”. 
A couple of key arguments have to be taken on board. If we do not increase the limits by making adjustments in accordance with the CPI then our $20000 spend in 1993 which should now be worth $27000 is not worth that amount. We are nowhere near spending $27000 next election year are we? We are nowhere near it. We are still at a level of $20000. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.