Maharey Steve: General Debate 
Maharey Steve: General Debate 
[Volume:634;Page:5428] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is good to follow on from the leader of the National Party and it is also interesting to note the way that National always has to turn to a Labour politician to be able to find something majestic to say. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just say that despite there being no demur from National members it is not right for the Minister on his feet to refer to the present cited incumbent as the leader of the National Party when he is not and never will be. But I was astonished that nobody on that side protested. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will correct that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s allowed to do that is he? You are just going to put up with that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Shadow Leader of the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the general debate it has been a longstanding practice that members do not interfere with and interrupt a brief 5-minute speech. I would have expected after the non-point of order from Mr Peters that you would have pointed that out and given some ruling of that sort. That is what I wish you to make plain to the House and I ask you to bring Mr Peters to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member had listened he would have heard that I asked the member to withdraw and apologise but there was so much noise coming from that side and he did not listen. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is always striking that when National members want to find something majestic to say about this country they go where? They turn to a Labour leader. There was not one single National leader they could turn to for a quote such as the one Gerry Brownlee raised in his speech. I say to Mr Gerry Brownlee that Norm Kirk was a Labour leader. Norm Kirk was one of us; Gerry Brownlee is no Norm Kirk. 
Over the last few weeks there has been a prolonged very loud and often vitriolic debate about election spending. Given the nature of that debate it has been quite hard at times to get the facts on the table but I want to do that today. Labour is saying that it is rejecting National’s accusations of inappropriate election spending because we have played by the rules. Indeed all parties in this House over a number of elections have played by the rules. Those rules are very simple. They allow for Parliamentary Service funding to be used during an election period—as long as the material produced does not ask for votes. 
A great deal has been made of the fact that there were changes in 2003. Let me say what those changes were. They amounted to putting the parliamentary crest on anything that was funded by Parliamentary Service money and—not or—putting the address that had to be referred to. Parties have played by those rules. They played by those rules in 2005. It is because Labour played by those rules that we are at pains to point out that over a whole range of elections all parties played by those rules. It therefore makes sense to say that Bill English was able to produce a commitment card in 2002 under those rules. Labour produced one in 2002; it was reasonable for us to produce that card in 2005 because nothing of substance had changed. Either both cards are wrong or both cards are right. We are not saying that two wrongs make a right. We are not saying that. We are saying that we played by the rules Bill English played by the rules and what we want is consistency of rules. 
 If someone does not like those rules they can change them but let me just say that what the police had to say I think provides a reasonable guide. Having looked at these issues I say that the context for a complaint would be an amendment to the Parliamentary Service rules for advertising—that is clarification of the rules. There can be no case for suddenly saying after the fact that people should have behaved in a different way. That would be wrong. 
Alongside those issues some other things have been of concern. The Exclusive Brethren acted in a way that is not acceptable in a democracy. They spent a lot of money secretly supporting the National Party. My colleague Phil Goff pointed out that they lied about policy. They lied about the Labour Party defence policy. Now they complain they are being attacked—and yes they are. But as religious studies lecturer Peter Lineham said: “They deserve everything they get.” It is naive for the Exclusive Brethren to think they can come into politics lie about people’s policy attack them in their electorates seek to overthrow them in their electorates and not have a robust defence put up by the people they attack. 
There is concern too about donations to parties—donations that are not revealed. There are suspicions that people with a lot of money are buying policy or perhaps asking for a change of policy. There are worries for example that accident compensation policy which National promised to change if it became the Government may well have backing from people who have something to gain if there is a change of Government. Third-party funding and anonymous donations are a worry in many countries and they are now a worry here.