English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:5213] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Clearly in putting up Phil Goff to speak Labour is not taking this issue seriously. All the activities that Phil Goff referred to are subject to examination by the statutory officers of the law of this country and any number of those activities have been looked at by those officers. Nothing that Labour members have said this week makes any difference to the facts. Like school bullies who are worried their bluff has been called and like spoilt children who have finally been told off all those members can do is lash out. 
Here are the facts. The Labour Party spent $440000 of taxpayers’ money on its pledge card. The matter is being examined by the Auditor-General. That is a fact. The Labour Party leaked the Auditor-General’s report. That is a fact. The Auditor-General is to bring out a final report on that spending. That is a fact. The Labour Party spent the money for a purpose not appropriated for by this House. That is a fact. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wrong Bill. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will tell the Labour member about the next set of facts. Before the election the Labour Party received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer which stated that no matter who paid for the pledge card it counted as an electoral expense. So even if the Auditor-General found that the right people paid for it and the money was rightfully used the pledge card still counts as an electoral expense. And if it counts as an electoral expense the Labour Party broke the law and overspent in the 2005 election campaign. 
Before the election the Labour Party said to the Chief Electoral Officer: “We agree that it counts.” After the election it changed its mind. In both cases—the pledge card and the overspending—it was coldly deliberately calculated. The Labour Party thought it could breach the law and get away with it afterwards by bullying our statutory officers by spinning with the media and by chucking Mr Mallard’s dirt around as far as it could. Well the public will not wear it for two reasons. The first reason is that the public cannot abide a Government that believes it is above the rule of law. The second reason is that the Labour Party has always campaigned on its credibility and this blows its credibility. 
We say it is of a piece. The Labour Party spent $400000 of taxpayers’ money on its own political objectives but that is not much worse than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a tertiary education strategy that has totally failed wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on Child Youth and Family Services which failed and wasting billions of dollars on a health service that has led to longer waiting lists and people being threatened with premature death as we found out today. That is why the public is reacting against this. The Prime Minister says it is a beltway issue and she still believes that. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks we should pack up and move on. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks the National Party will give up on this issue and on the issue of her corrupt handling of Taito Phillip Field’s corruption and she is wrong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just checking that you were listening at that point and heard a word that has been proscribed. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did hear that word thank you Mr Mallard. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling that the word “corrupt” cannot be used in this Parliament? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am saying that “corruption” is a word that cannot be used unless it is used in connection with Speaker’s ruling 25/5. If that is done then members have every right to use that word. Speaker’s ruling 25/5 states: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Exception has been taken by another member and I uphold the member’s right to do that. I have asked the member to withdraw and Mr English has done that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I think you need to provide a written ruling around this issue because in using the word as he did Mr English is complying with the Speaker’s ruling as it is expressed. It is not appropriate for anyone else in this House to intimidate a Minister by referring to the Standing Orders the Speakers’ rulings or the prejudice that may or may not exist from the Chair. Rather than take action on this immediately I believe you need to think very very carefully about the constraints that you are now ruling that members of Parliament are under. All Mr English said was that allegations had been raised of corrupt practice. What is wrong with that and how does it fit outside the current Speaker’s ruling? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The difference of course is a factual one. It is a question of what the member said and his association of two members of the House with that practice. It is very clear—the ruling dates back to 1934—that any allegation of that practice has to be put down in writing. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that we need to remind ourselves what has actually happened. Firstly Taito Phillip Field is being investigated by the police under a precise statutory provision that refers to taking bribes. Are we not allowed to talk about that Mr Assistant Speaker according to your ruling? Secondly the Labour Party has already been investigated by the police under a section of the legislation that refers directly to the words “corrupt practice”. There are no allegations; there is no speculation that Labour might be investigated—it has been. That is a matter of public record. It would be rather odd for you to rule out the ability of members of Parliament to refer to the facts of those investigations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: These matters have been traversed at least once before during my time in the House. Members at the time had their attention drawn to Speaker’s rulings 25/5 and 26/3. Those rulings make it absolutely clear that if members are making allegations of the type that Bill English is making there is a proper constitutional way of doing so and that is in writing not by veiled reference during a speech. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a very important issue Mr Assistant Speaker and I want you to consider the particular part of the ruling that talks about “veiled suggestions”. No veiled suggestions were made in Mr English’s comments. They were factual and they were straightforward. I think you are getting into a position where your ruling will supersede the protection that members can expect from Speaker’s ruling 25/5—a ruling that as Mr Mallard himself says has stood since 1934. I ask you once again Mr Assistant Speaker to think about maybe taking some time to produce a written ruling for the House because the writing up of the ruling as you have given it will in fact supersede Speaker’s ruling 25/5. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like to agree with Mr Brownlee. This is a very important ruling Mr Assistant Speaker because you are being invited to change a longstanding practice. If that is to occur it should happen in writing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable members and remind them that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality because that would be a personal reflection and is out of order under Standing Order 116 which concerns personal reflections. I have taken on board what both Mr Brownlee and Mr Mallard have said and consideration will be given. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you when you are deliberating on that matter to replay the tape of what Mr English said. The argument that has been proffered to you in the House suggests he said things that he did not say and it ignores what he actually said. If you were to deliberate and come to a decision based on the arguments that were being put forward by Mr Brownlee you would totally miss the allegations and the transgression that Mr English made. Sometimes these points of order get diverted when people reinterpret the words that were used. The words that were used by Mr English referred to the corrupt manner in which the Prime Minister handled the corrupt practices of Taito Phillip Field. It would be easier for the House to go forward if you focused on the tape recording of exactly what Mr English said as opposed to what his colleagues say he said and what he intended. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. I have heard what you said. I repeat that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality. That would be a personal reflection and out of order under Standing Order 116 when it comes to an individual member. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will give Labour some advice and that is to make a genuine apology to own up and to front up to the public. What is now mystifying the public is just why Helen Clark is digging in so hard when she is so obviously wrong.