CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I do not intend to waste any time on that Minister, Chris Carter, who is hopeless, as we all know. Rather, I want to educate the Minister of Justice, Annette King, who needs some help.
She admitted in question time this afternoon that she did not know the legislative history of the Electoral Finance Act. So I want to talk about aspects of that legislation, which was passed in haste by Labour and its cronies. And why was that? It was passed simply to benefit Labour and hobble its opponents in election year. The legislation was initially the responsibility of Mark Burton, but he was such a sad case that he made a botch of that—and, indeed, of everything else he touched—so he got the sack. The current Minister of Justice is ritually humiliated by Bill English every day in question time. Her reputation has been destroyed to such an extent that I actually have a chance in the Rongotai electorate.
One clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that was the subject of vigorous debate was clause 25C. That was part of the donations regime that was unilaterally put into the bill one day, with no consultation with National members of Parliament. It was interesting to note that during the course of the debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee, Labour MPs would run away during lunchtime, presumably to get some instructions about the wording of the provision. They were most anxious about the definition of “overseas person”—as Mr Auchinvole will confirm. In 2008 we have discovered why those members were so concerned about the definition of “overseas person”. It transpires that this legislation, and particular regime, was passed in order to facilitate the donations of Mr Glenn to the Labour Party.
Mr Glenn is the man who gave $500,000 in donations to Labour’s 2005 election campaign after he met the Prime Minister at a Tourism New Zealand promotional dinner in Sydney on 8 July 2004. Instalments of that massive payment were deposited into Labour’s bank account on the 9th of each month from November 2004 through to March 2005. We also know about the interest-free loan. We know that Mr Glenn was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. We know that he has alleged he was offered the role of Minister of Transport in her Cabinet—and, given that the Minister of Justice is also the Minister of Transport, that may not have been such a dumb idea. We know that Mike Williams also told the media that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005, and that, as a consequence of that statement, Mike Williams offered his resignation.
This Labour Government passed that disgusting legislation in order to advance its own electoral chances in election year. We all know the Electoral Finance Act is riddled with errors. Every day there is a question about the effect of section 5. No one knows what section 5 means. But section 32 is the worst example of legislating to favour the Government at the expense of Opposition parties. It was specifically inserted to facilitate donations from Mr Owen Glenn, and when he was of no further use to the Labour Party he was simply vomited out.
No matter how cynical one becomes in this place, it is impossible to keep up with the cynicism of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s high-sounding rhetoric about waiting for due process is not about natural justice and her passionate concern for that; she knows that the Privileges Committee will probably never get the opportunity to adjudicate on the matter currently before it, because Parliament is shortly to be prorogued. Members should compare that with her very firm treatment of people like the Hon David Parker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the Hon Dover Samuels, and Taito Phillip Field. Members should compare that particularly with the treatment of Mr Parker, who was subsequently reinstated. He had to resign as Attorney-General and resign as Minister of Energy and Minister of Transport on the following day, and he was reinstated. At the very least, the previous member for Tauranga, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, should be required to stand down pending determination of the matters before the Privileges Committee, given the seriousness of them and given the effect on Parliament’s reputation.
As I say, no matter how cynical one becomes in this place, one cannot keep up with the Labour Party. It really is an excrescence, and it really is lower than vermin.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker I want to make a comment. Earlier today the deputy leader of the National Party took a point of order about the use of pejorative language in this House. The previous speaker’s speech contained pejorative language, not just in the last sentence, and not just in the comments about the Labour Party, but in the early ones about individuals in the House. I ask that member to reflect on that.
DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood what the member said, and I would expect that any member who used what might have been the four-letter alternative would be withdrawing and apologising. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in this House, especially when it comes from a barrister who thought he would bring a higher standard to this House.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He is not a member of the Labour Party, but I will withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, would the member withdraw and apologise without the preface, please.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have withdrawn and apologised. How could one do it better?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Normally when members withdraw and apologise, they just withdraw and apologise and make no comment before or after doing so.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.
One clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that was the subject of vigorous debate was clause 25C. That was part of the donations regime that was unilaterally put into the bill one day, with no consultation with National members of Parliament. It was interesting to note that during the course of the debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee, Labour MPs would run away during lunchtime, presumably to get some instructions about the wording of the provision. They were most anxious about the definition of “overseas person”—as Mr Auchinvole will confirm. In 2008 we have discovered why those members were so concerned about the definition of “overseas person”. It transpires that this legislation, and particular regime, was passed in order to facilitate the donations of Mr Glenn to the Labour Party.
Mr Glenn is the man who gave $500,000 in donations to Labour’s 2005 election campaign after he met the Prime Minister at a Tourism New Zealand promotional dinner in Sydney on 8 July 2004. Instalments of that massive payment were deposited into Labour’s bank account on the 9th of each month from November 2004 through to March 2005. We also know about the interest-free loan. We know that Mr Glenn was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. We know that he has alleged he was offered the role of Minister of Transport in her Cabinet—and, given that the Minister of Justice is also the Minister of Transport, that may not have been such a dumb idea. We know that Mike Williams also told the media that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005, and that, as a consequence of that statement, Mike Williams offered his resignation.
This Labour Government passed that disgusting legislation in order to advance its own electoral chances in election year. We all know the Electoral Finance Act is riddled with errors. Every day there is a question about the effect of section 5. No one knows what section 5 means. But section 32 is the worst example of legislating to favour the Government at the expense of Opposition parties. It was specifically inserted to facilitate donations from Mr Owen Glenn, and when he was of no further use to the Labour Party he was simply vomited out.
No matter how cynical one becomes in this place, it is impossible to keep up with the cynicism of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s high-sounding rhetoric about waiting for due process is not about natural justice and her passionate concern for that; she knows that the Privileges Committee will probably never get the opportunity to adjudicate on the matter currently before it, because Parliament is shortly to be prorogued. Members should compare that with her very firm treatment of people like the Hon David Parker, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the Hon Dover Samuels, and Taito Phillip Field. Members should compare that particularly with the treatment of Mr Parker, who was subsequently reinstated. He had to resign as Attorney-General and resign as Minister of Energy and Minister of Transport on the following day, and he was reinstated. At the very least, the previous member for Tauranga, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, should be required to stand down pending determination of the matters before the Privileges Committee, given the seriousness of them and given the effect on Parliament’s reputation.
As I say, no matter how cynical one becomes in this place, one cannot keep up with the Labour Party. It really is an excrescence, and it really is lower than vermin.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker I want to make a comment. Earlier today the deputy leader of the National Party took a point of order about the use of pejorative language in this House. The previous speaker’s speech contained pejorative language, not just in the last sentence, and not just in the comments about the Labour Party, but in the early ones about individuals in the House. I ask that member to reflect on that.
DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood what the member said, and I would expect that any member who used what might have been the four-letter alternative would be withdrawing and apologising. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in this House, especially when it comes from a barrister who thought he would bring a higher standard to this House.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He is not a member of the Labour Party, but I will withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, would the member withdraw and apologise without the preface, please.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have withdrawn and apologised. How could one do it better?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Normally when members withdraw and apologise, they just withdraw and apologise and make no comment before or after doing so.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.
