Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4786] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There is considerable irony in following that member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s a corrupt Minister. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —that member in particular— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot call the Minister corrupt like that. He knows that that is not within— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have just listened with great clearness to a speech from Mr McCully that makes it absolutely plain within the definition of the law that what the Government did was corrupt. I will not have you as a member who was elected on that corrupt practice tell me that I cannot say that in this Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he can never bring the Speaker into the debate. For that the member will stand withdraw and apologise. There is a clear Speaker’s ruling on the word “corruption”—of calling another member a corrupt member. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for those two— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise for bringing the Speaker into the debate but I stand by my statement that this is a corrupt Government in terms of the Electoral Act. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think there is actually much that needs to be said. The member has been required to withdraw and apologise by you. He has declined and the procedures at this point I think require naming. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I do that I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise. I will just ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have to you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I asked the member to withdraw and apologise for calling the Minister a corrupt Minister. Please stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No I am not going to. The Government has been disgraced. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member now needs to leave the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I would rather leave than tell a lie. 
The Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that he cannot make a comment like that when he leaves. He has been told to leave and he says nothing more. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Much as I do not want to comment on your last ruling I think it is one that sets a terrible precedent. It has been very clear in the past when members make that sort of comment that there has been additional punishment put on them. I have experienced that myself from Speakers from both sides and frankly I think it is a useful precedent and one that should be stuck to. If people can abuse the Chair as they leave and not receive further punishment then this House will fall even further into disrepute. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well the member makes a perfectly valid point and certainly all members when they are asked to leave the House should leave without making any comment at all. I know that I certainly do not want to see this practice continue. If it does there will be action. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague Dr Smith—and I am not challenging your ruling—is pretty upset with the actions of the Government. Throughout Dr Brash’s speech and other speeches in the House this afternoon we have heard the word “corruption” being used many many times. There were no points of order at that stage. The Speaker never interrupted the speeches at that stage when the word “corruption” was used. I do not know where in the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 it is stated—and you may be able to point me in the right direction—that the word “corruption” cannot be used. I have not sought that ruling myself. 
Dr Smith has been ejected from the House for saying that this is a corrupt Government and that the people involved are corrupt but his remark was in line with the whole theme that has been running from Dr Brash’s speech when he led the debate for National at the start of the general debate. The word “corruption” has come up many times and I think it is appropriate that that word continue to be used as there were no interjections and no one brought points of order during the period when that word was used. As you have ejected Dr Smith from the House—and I am not challenging what you have done—that is punishment in itself and in our view no further action needs to be taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not what happened. The member clearly called the Minister “a corrupt Minister” and he cannot do that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to strongly reject the submission the National Party whip has just made to you. The idea that Ministers or Governments can be described in that way has been outside the Speakers’ rulings ever since we have had a Parliament and just because apparently someone else did it earlier does not bring it within the Speakers’ rulings. You will remember of course that there was considerable noise from the National Party at the time Dr Brash was speaking. Many of us could not hear. We did not complain because we did not think we were missing much. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. There will be no further discussion. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? Because I have dealt with this issue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Yes it is a new point of order. I understand the ruling that has been made and there is a series of Speakers’ rulings that deal with the matter. But I invite you to read section 214B(3) of the Electoral Act which creates a quite precise definition of a “corrupt practice”. A narrow legal term is used in section 214B(3) to describe certain activities. In fact it also describes it as an “illegal practice” the situation where a politician or a political party engages in the same sort of act but unknowingly. 
I want you to inspect that section of the Act and perhaps consider giving the House a considered ruling. Clearly there has to be a way of members being able to refer in the course of debate to that section and to the legal consequences of that section in a way that is inside the Standing Orders. I would like you to advise the House in light of your earlier ruling how we might be able to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you will find that it could well be valuable to give that sort of considered ruling but I think many of us who have been here not too long would be able to right it relatively quickly. There are proper ways of bringing up matters such as that—as with a number of other criminal matters that members including members opposite have been accused of in the past—and it is not through comment in this Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. We are dealing with the order of the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a pleasure to rejoin the debate and to say it is an irony to follow the attempt made by the member who has just resumed his seat as he seeks to mount the pedestal of high moral ground by quoting the Auditor-General as saying—I wrote his quote down—words to the effect that taxpayers do not pay for a party’s political activities. Well let us look at some of the National Party’s political activities. I have a brief sample of the sort of thing that one can talk about in a 5-minute speech. 
We can begin at the time when Bill English was the leader of the National Party in 2003. He had billboards around the country paid for by the taxpayer complete with parliamentary crests that of course were political in nature. Is Bill English not a politician? So we have the National Party on its very big high horse and as Michael Cullen said during question time when one mounts that sort of saddle one had better make sure it will stay upright. Certainly this information I have here—what National stands for in pretty colours largely in blue—has a parliamentary crest on it and is therefore a piece of propaganda paid for by the taxpayer. 
But we can go further; we can go to my home town of Dunedin 3 weeks before the election. Here is a letter from Katherine Rich MP that states: “More money for superannuitants.” Does this letter suggest that Katherine Rich is seeking to reduce votes for National? I think not. Can we assume that this activity is therefore a party political activity? I think we can. The letter talks about the National Party it talks about a better deal it talks about guarantees it has Katherine Rich’s signature on it it has the National Party insignia on it and it has a parliamentary crest. This letter was paid for by the taxpayer. And on and on it goes. 
We have the sight of the unctuous Don Brash—the man who a year ago could not remember whether he had met with the Exclusive Brethren did not tell his deputy half the story and did not tell his finance spokesperson half the story. Then in the third week of the campaign in an extraordinary several days the media got information piece by piece from the reluctant and denying Dr Don Brash. He is the man who said to Paul Holmes: “I don’t know where the pamphlets came from.” but within days he did. Within days he had worked out that he had met the Exclusive Brethren once. Then he said he had met them more than once. Then he said he had met them several times. And then finally he confessed he knew the Exclusive Brethren were bankrolling his campaign. Even then the unctuous Dr Brash decided to take the meetings out of his diaries. He took them out. 
Dr Don Brash 
: It’s not true. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true. He took them out of his diaries and now he is acting holier than thou. 
I say to the good Dr Brash that 10000 bucks will not cut it. Ten thousand bucks will not go near it. He should read carefully the Solicitor-General’s findings read carefully the Auditor-General’s findings look at himself in the mirror look at the size of a $10000 cheque and see whether he has got it to add up—because he has not done so now any more than he did with GST. He just has not got it to add up. The member declines to accept that much of the things he has paid back for are only a fraction of the totality of that party’s liability. The member continues to be in denial—just as he denied for days that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren. The member appears to be in denial. 
But I can have my most fun with a piece of advertising that was paid for by the National Party. This was paid for by raffling chooks or by going to the Exclusive Brethren or the insurance agents or whomever it goes to for its money. It was paid for by someone other than the taxpayer. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Stick to the truth. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Don Brash has asked me to stick to the truth. Let me read from his own press statement: “You are the Reserve Bank Governor 2001. You can see the Government is making dumb choices that are slowly wrecking the country you love. You know that if you speak out about it you risk being sacked from the job that you love.” That is the spin. What are the facts? 
The facts are that that refers to a speech Don Brash gave at the Knowledge Wave conference. I was there; the speech was boring. Don Brash said in his speech that we needed to sell more things privatise more and get rid of the minimum wage—all of that stuff. He is agreeing with it even now. Even now the good Dr Brash is agreeing that that is the pathway for the country.