Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12933. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. Never before in the history of any consideration of parliamentary legislation has such Mugabe-style legislation been defended in such a pedestrian fashion as we have just heard from the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee. [ 
Interruption 
] The Hon David Carter says to be charitable and Michael Woodhouse who is a new member has a bewildered look on his face which is not all that different from the look he has at question time actually but I am assuming it is bewildered now. My description of this legislation as “Mugabe-style” is not my own personal view; I will be voting in support of this bill as will my Labour colleagues. The description of this definition of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes as “Mugabe-style” is a direct quote from Gerry Brownlee who tonight is the Minister in charge of introducing this legislation to the House. This bill rolls over what was an interim definition of parliamentary purposes which just a matter of a few months ago was so bad that it was not to be simply opposed by the National Party in Opposition but it was to be elevated to such a level of Dr Evil status as to be Mugabe-like. Yet I never heard once during the Leader of the House’s contribution any sort of graceful jumping down off the horse in that respect as to how all of a sudden he now has insights that have changed his view as to how this legislation is not Mugabe-style but rather is enforcing and reinforcing our democratic style in New Zealand. 
I say to the Government that tonight the Labour Party will do a terrible evil hopeless duplicitous thing: we will maintain a consistent position. I know that the Tories over there at the mere thought of a consistent position are falling off their benches. It is like one of those new vampire TV seasons where a bit of daylight falling on them sees them melt. But we will vote the same way that we voted in Government. We will stand on the same definition that we believed in when we were the Government and we will back this legislation as a result of that. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What a lack of imagination. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Jonathan Coleman is busy over there squawking away from the third row which originally I thought was not a high enough place for him but the last 18 months have made me absolutely convinced of that view but he has to know why. He voted against this legislation when he was in Opposition and said that it was a terrible thing. I know that my colleagues have found all sorts of quotes from Opposition members from that time so let me— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: There are new facts. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: And what are those new facts I ask Dr Coleman? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I haven’t got a speaking slot. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: You know being a member of Cabinet in New Zealand is such a limiting experience. He does not have a speaking slot so he cannot tell us what are the new facts or the new information that led to a change in this whole area. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s easy. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: David Carter says that it is easy. I ask what it is. 
Hon David Carter 
: You’re on that side and we’re on this side. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh I thank the member for saying that. The Hansard reporter has recorded it and I can respond to it so it is now on the record that National members say that on legislation like this it depends on what side of the House one sits on as to what the definition of “parliamentary purposes” should be. You know there is nothing more reliable than a Tory in that respect and I thank the honourable member across the House for that. 
Hon Member 
: You’re wishing you were one really. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no I do not wish that I was one of the National members because I cannot believe the language that we heard. I respect the Leader of the House on a number of levels but I wish that there could have been some explanation as to why the Mugabe-style legislation after his careful diligent consideration of the legislation turned out to be exactly the same as Labour’s legislation and all of a sudden it is no longer Mugabe-style. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I’m not an intransigent man. I move. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I know that the member has become quite skilled at the U-turn in recent times but I would have thought there would be a little more Kirkcaldie and Stains class about this rather than the Farmers version that we saw tonight in respect of this legislation. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: They don’t like farmers over there. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Farmers Trading store—where the member gets all his best suits. 
The other point that needs to be raised is with regard to Bill English who I hoped would be taking a call tonight because this is the sort of legislation he should be opposing on conscience grounds. I am not sure whether it is a party vote but on conscience grounds he should oppose this because of what happened when he was the Leader of the Opposition. We heard a remarkably incisive insightful and revealing speech during the third reading of the Appropriation Bill today. All the Minister of Finance’s personal disappointments defeats and anger were channelled through that speech. If anyone who is observing the debate tonight wants to know about political disappointments and setbacks then he or she ought to read that speech. It is rich material. 
I am grateful to Mr English for the way in which he gives these speeches from time to time. But when he was the Leader of the Opposition most of the 2002 election campaign was funded through the Parliamentary Service. So National members opposite tonight who previously opposed this definition and are now in support of it need to reflect on how this point was driven through by Mr English when he was in charge. When we hear speeches from him about fiscal prudence wasteful expenditure and all those sorts of matters they need to know that there is a veritable pot-pourri of examples from Mr English whether it is Parliamentary Service spending or Ministerial Services spending on which he really should not be lecturing the rest of the House. His colleagues would do well to advise him on that point. 
The Leader of the House has spelt out what this legislation does. I have not gone over that ground again because as I said— 
Tim Macindoe 
: You haven’t talked about it at all. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Mr Macindoe interjects but the point if he had been listening at the beginning is that Labour’s position is consistent. 
Tim Macindoe 
: You haven’t got any point at all. That’s your consistent point. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The consistent point is that the definition in this bill which I doubt the member has read is the same one that this party has supported has brought before Parliament and has voted on and on which it has faced ridicule from the Opposition including David Carter who was once a front-bencher. David Carter was once the finance spokesman for the National Party. He was once at No. 3 in the party. It is hard to know that from his work rate today I know. We see him once every sitting session but when he does come along we remember that he was once a senior man in the National Party. In those days National members used to get up and rail against legislation of this type. We are in support of it. We are in support of the brightline test—always have been. We are in support of the definitions that sit in the bill—always have been. We are looking forward to the consultation that the Government says it will have through the select committee process. 
None of this is new but it would be too disappointing just to sit here and not point out some of the irony that comes along. I know that irony goes alongside life; it is part of the natural human condition. Anger is not which is why Bill English always surprises me so much. But I would have thought that it would be good manners when legislation like this is going through for members opposite to say: “Look we have now had a chance to think about it.” and they could have invented three or four things. I am sure that the Ministry of Justice could find three or four— 
Tim Macindoe 
: Sir Humphrey would be proud of this effort Darren. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well “Sir Humphrey” is Wayne Mapp so I would be very careful about that. That side of the House is littered with Jim Hackers and Humphrey Applebys. In fact as I look at the member more I see that he reflects that kind of personality in every single respect. I am not sure that he has had so many interjections as he has tonight. I am being so generous to him in responding. In fact tonight the member achieves his  
Hansard 
 world record. He will be wanting to go on the Westminster scholarship to London for 6 weeks on the back of that achievement pretty soon I am sure. 
Labour will support the first reading of this legislation. We will send it off to a select committee and see it go through. It is important that this happen. In fact when the interim definition was put through both sides of the political divide—the Government and the Opposition—did say that we had to get beyond an interim definition and work out a new definition. I am glad that the imagination creativity class and genius of Gerry Brownlee has seen the interim definition become the permanent one with no difference whatsoever. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We were held back by the Opposition. They couldn’t let go. They had to hold on. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is true that the Government was held back by the Opposition but not in this term; it was during the last one. That is what happened when we saw this legislation go through previously. 
If we can get some permanent settlement on these matters then I think it will be useful because so many things have been said by members across both sides of the House on this issue over the years. It will provide a proper and sensible resolution to the matter. I am just grateful for the fact that this Government has an Opposition that is far more willing to cooperate in a sensible way on matters like this rather than to quote the immortal words of the Hon David Carter: “When we are sitting on one side of the House we will say one thing. When we are sitting on the other side we will say the other.” That can only be reminiscent of a policy that was to be a step change with our economic performance with Australia. When one is on this side of the House it is so easy to define what the difference is with regard to the gap between New Zealand and Australia. One just gets up and say: “It is in big trouble and we are going to sort it out.” and when one is on that side of the House one is left debating statistical series courtesy of Statistics New Zealand where one is not quite sure whether it is the average wage the median wage the average income the purchase price parity and all the other things that those members say and one has eight or nine different series of statistics that one has to quote. But when one is over here it all seems so easy. 
In a spirit of generosity towards the Government we say that we are with the Government on this. We support it. We think the Government has done a great job on it and we just hope that when the accrued accounts of the Parliamentary Service come out we find that the xerox machine that has helped this legislation go from Labour to National has not been put on our budget.