Hipkins Chris: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12938. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a very brief call on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to outline of course Labour’s support for this legislation and the principles contained within it. We have consistently supported this legislation since 2006 when the Auditor-General raised the issues that he did. Labour’s position on this has not changed unlike the Government’s. 
I was interested however to see that Chris Tremain decided to introduce into the debate the issue of the pledge card. Labour was disappointed with the Auditor-General’s decision about the pledge card and we stumped up and paid that money back. But I will tell the House that one thing people knew about the Labour Party pledge card was that we would keep the promises that were on it. 
I have here a pledge card that was distributed at the last election. Four of the pledges have already been broken and by my count at least three more are at risk. Out of a total of 11 pledges National has already broken four and there are at least three more that it is thinking about breaking. Steven Joyce is thinking about breaking National’s pledge on interest-free student loans. He has been musing out loud about how unaffordable they are. National has already broken its pledge on tax cuts. It has already broken its pledge on front-line services. It has already broken its education pledge. It has already broken its pledges on superannuation. 
One thing we knew about the Labour pledge card was that when Helen Clark signed her name to it and said that the Labour Government was going to deliver on it we actually were going to deliver on it whereas National’s pledge card stated: “If National is elected to lead the next Government I personally guarantee that we will: …”. Whose name is on the bottom of that piece of paper personally guaranteeing all those promises that have been broken? It is John Key’s. His signature is at the bottom of the National pledge card but those promises have not been kept. 
Labour has consistently supported the position that is outlined in this legislation. Labour has consistently supported that unlike National. Gerry Brownlee described it as “utterly disgraceful”. This very legislation being introduced to the House now was— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The same. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It was exactly the same legislation and Gerry Brownlee thought it was utterly disgraceful. Nick Smith stood in this House and said of the same legislation: “I know of no time in my 17 years when I have seen a bill that will bring this Parliament into as much disrepute as the bill before us.” That was Nick Smith’s position on this legislation. He was one of Bill English’s right-hand men. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Numbers man. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. He was the field marshal and Bill English’s numbers man. 
It is ironic that he thought this legislation was going to bring Parliament into disrepute when the 2002 National Party election campaign presided over by Bill English was funded entirely by the taxpayer. Do we remember the billboards up and down the country? They showed Bill English in front of the beach saying: “No special deals. The beaches are for everyone.” I wonder whether National’s position on that has changed in the last few months as well like all of the promises on its pledge card. Those words— 
Hon David Parker 
: Who paid for the billboard? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I ask Mr English who paid for the billboard. 
Hon Bill English 
: I don’t remember. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He does not remember. The billboards were all over the country; they said: “No special deals. The beaches are for everyone.”—and Bill English cannot remember who paid for them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I will give the member a hint: it had the parliamentary crest on it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They had the parliamentary crest on them. The taxpayer paid for them. 
We know that not just because they had the parliamentary crest on them but because we know that the National Party had no money. We know that it had no money because when Don Brash rolled Bill English he stood up in the caucus and read out a letter that said that National had no money and that was why he needed to replace Bill English as the National Party leader. All these years later Bill English is still simmering with resentment and we saw that this afternoon in the appropriations debate when he canvassed all of that bitter history of Don Brash rolling him. 
Of course we know what happened to Don Brash in the end.  
The Hollow Men 
 came along. Nicky Hager came along and ruined it for Don Brash with a bit of help from people on the side. I wonder who may well have been involved in that. A few people on the other side of the House have never stood up and denied that they were involved in leaking the information to Nicky Hager. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ask Bill about the emails. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well one could ask Mr English about the emails. Suddenly he is very quiet again. He is keeping his lips firmly sealed. Bill English has never denied that he had anything to do with the leaking of the emails. He has never stood in the House and said that he had nothing to do with it. I wonder why that could be. 
I will come back to this bill that we are debating in the House today. Judith Collins described this bill as being “such a disgrace”. I wonder whether she will vote for this bill in a few moments. Anne Tolley the Minister of Education whom we know we can believe because she is very consistent in the things that she says said: “This bill is a rort. It is an absolute disgrace for democracy in New Zealand.” That was the position of the Minister of Education when this bill first came before Parliament. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Like lambs to the slaughter. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Like lambs to the slaughter. Gerry Brownlee just a few short moments ago said this legislation had “stood the test of time”. The legislation that Anne Tolley thought was a disgrace for democracy Gerry Brownlee thinks has stood the test of time. David Carter of course gave that very enlightening observation that it is Mugabe-style legislation when National is in Opposition but it is perfectly legitimate now that National is in Government. 
At least Labour has some consistency in our position here. We supported this legislation when it was first introduced. We supported the interim definition of funding for parliamentary purposes. Gerry Brownlee said the Government needed to find a more enduring solution to that interim definition. We now have it and it is exactly the same; National has just changed the word “interim” to “permanent”. But Labour has consistently supported it. 
Finally I remind the House of what Tony Ryall said about this legislation. He said: “It should matter to the lower benches of the Labour Party because they may be in a future Parliament and they will not want a future Government to jackboot over their rights as an Opposition …”—to jackboot over their rights. So by his own definition Tony Ryall and National are jackbooting over the rights of the Labour Opposition with the legislation they have brought before the House. 
Finally—I know it is my second “finally” but there is always time for one more—Chris Tremain talked about spending limits when he talked about the 2005 general election campaign. Perhaps we could rewind the tape and go back to the little issue that was National’s GST problem. It spent all that extra money on television advertising but it forgot to pay the GST on it so National exceeded its own spending limits. It broke the law by spending more money on television advertising than it was allowed to because it forgot that it had to pay GST. 
I wonder whether the people at home who are paying more GST every time they go to the supermarket could simply say when they got to the checkout counter that they had forgotten about the GST and ask for it to be taken off the bill and sent to Bill English for him to pay. It will not matter that they have exceeded their budget; they can keep on spending because they forgot about the GST. That is what the National Party did in 2005 when it wanted to spend more than it was legally entitled to. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They never paid it back. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They never ever paid it back. The Labour Party paid back the money owing for the pledge card but the taxpayers are still waiting for the GST money from National’s 2005 election advertising. They are still waiting for the National Party to stump up and pay the money. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What are you shaking your head for “Cue Ball”? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: David Bennett is shaking his head and I agree with him: it is an absolute disgrace and I am pleased to see that David Bennett who is on the backbenches of the National Party thinks it is a disgrace as well. 
I am very pleased to see the interim definition that Gerry Brownlee thought was “Mugabe-style” legislation now becoming permanent because it is a sensible solution and that is why Labour will be voting in favour of it.