Blog | ACT New Zealand

Here's today's speech.

ACT's got a great opportunity this year.

1. We have worked hard in Epsom and the people of Epsom appreciate it. The voters of Epsom can guarantee every party vote for ACT counts.

2. ACT's small size and MMP allows us to be the only party to have a consistent and principled political philosophy, best summarised with the phrase, "Free to Choose".

3. John Key to win power is understandably adopting Labour Party policy to minimise policy difference sbetween National and Labour. Their promise is not to change Labour Party policy, only to tweak and tinker with it.

4. ACT has the opportunity to change the country's direction.

5. ACT's goal is to get into a position where our vote is needed to form a government.

6. Our opportunity is to get the MPs elected we need to drive decent policy -- and to announce and campaign on policy that will make a difference to how the country is run.

7. Key areas are the Economy, Health and Education.

8. We can do much better in Education by allowing greater diversity and opportunity. We will be announcing good policy in Education.

9. In Health the key is greater transparency and accountability. Labour has increased Health spending from $6b to $11.5b without much to show for it.

10. For the Economy we need to cut rd tape and cut taxes. The key to cutting taxes is holding government spending. That's why ACT's Taxpayer Rights Bill discussed today in my speech is so important.

11. ACT's Regulatory Responsibility Bill now before the COmmerce COmmittee is the key to cutting Red Tape.

12. It's going to be a great year!

I'm Back!

I have spent two years with the team working Epsom. The hard work is paying off.

I have spent a year get ACT's anti-Red Tape Regulatory Responsiblity Bill through Parliament. I believe that we can pass a Bill before the election that will be progress and we have improved the drafting of the original Bill for passing post-election.

I have spent two years getting myself into shape for this election. I'm leaner, fitter, stronger.

ACT has spent two years studying and planning our MMP strategy.

I spent the Christmas break around New Zealand meeting people and doing as many physical activities as I could: bungied off Auckland Harbour Bridge, tramped the Humpridge track, canoed the Wanganui River, parachuted from 15,000 feet at Rotorua, rafted the Upper Buller Gorge.

I spent January with the Board and Party finalising ACT's election year strategy.

It's all looking good.

I haven't gone to Waitangi this year. I have been flat stick getting everything done. Instead I am giving my first speech of the year at Remuera Rackets Club at a BBQ ACT has organised. I will post my speech later today.

It's good to be back. Thank goodness it's election year.

Government policy and "We're Here to Help"

Clause 5 of the Electoral Finance Act will catch the movie "We're Here to Help". Here's what the Minister of Justice has to say about that:

Rodney Hide: Does he agree that the Electoral Finance Bill is too broad in its sweep, when South Pacific Pictures’ movie We’re Here to Help, about Dave Henderson’s fight with the Inland Revenue Department, is captured by clause 5 as "words and graphics" that will persuade voters not to vote for a particular party, especially in light of Michael Cullen’s repeated attacks under privilege on Dave Henderson, and does he not think that that is absurd, given that the Government, through the Film Commission, has poured $1.9 million of taxpayers’ money into the movie, which none the less under his bill would be declared election advertising?

Hon MARK BURTON: Perhaps the relevant part of the member’s question in particular is around clause 5(1)(a), and I would suggest in particular clause 5(1)(a)(iii), which has been the focus of a considerable number of submissions. It is, I believe, an area in which the select committee will offer its view, and I would not be surprised to see a suggested refinement to that clause. I would be happy to consider that, as I have indicated all along.

Meanwhile Deputy Prime Minister MIchael Cullen refuses to retract his defamatory attacks on Dave made -- of course -- under privilege:

11. RODNEY HIDE (Leader--ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that Mr David Henderson, or "Hendo" is "one of the biggest and nastiest tax evaders in this country … who ran the sex industry in Christchurch and avoided tax thereon” and has he any evidence to support his claims?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : Mr Henderson has exercised his right to make a formal response to this House and I have no further comment to make on the matter.

Rodney Hide: How then can Dave Henderson ever get fair treatment from the Inland Revenue Department when the Deputy Prime Minister has already declared him guilty of criminal tax evasion and he has never even been charged or had any evidence produced against him, and why is the Deputy Prime Minister not big enough to apologise and say that he got it wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Under the Tax Administration Act, of course, the Inland Revenue Department must not take any instructions from Ministers on such matters, at all.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister not find it richly ironic that the taxpayer, through the Film Commission, has put $1.9 million into a movie, We're Here to Help, showing that the Inland Revenue Department unfairly victimised Mr Dave Henderson--a victimisation that continues to this day because of the wild allegations that were made by the Deputy Prime Minister under privilege and that to this day have not been retracted?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I repeat that under the Tax Administration Act, the Inland Revenue Department must act independently and cannot be directed. The fact that the Film Commission has helped fund a film shows what a democracy this is. But I would like to quote to the member from the blurb for the film: "This film does not purport to be an accurate account of the events involving Mr Henderson and the IRD."

So much for Michael Cullen's respect for the truth and another peson's reputation.

Parliamentary appropriation bill

RODNEY HIDE (Leader--ACT): The ACT party rises reluctantly to support this bill. We are reluctant to support it because I do not think anyone in this House finds the present rules satisfactory. We did not vote for this bill originally because our view then was that it was an attempt to legalise spending retrospectively that the Auditor-General had found to be outside the rules. It is now the case that every party has committed to paying back that money. Certainly New Zealand First will pay it back, once it has collected all the interest that it can gather. But the difficulty I have with this bill is that we have not yet fixed the rules. I do not know how any party in this House can, in good conscience, vote against it. The situation is that the Auditor-General said that the rules we were operating under were not good enough. In fact, I think he said that he would freeze our funding if we did not work to fix up the rules. I have to congratulate Speaker Margaret Wilson, who has been working assiduously with the Parliamentary Service Commission to try to come up with a decent set of rules that are workable and that get the big tick from the Auditor-General. I have to say that there have been some parties, and I am thinking of National in particular, that want to keep the rules as they were in 2005. That has been the big constraint to getting a decent of rules through with the Speaker. If we do not accept that there was a problem, and the problem is that the Auditor-General said there was a problem, then it is very hard to set about fixing it. The National Party’s position has been “Oh, we just want to stay with the rules as they were.” Well, sorry, the Auditor-General’s report ruled that out of court. We then had a situation where we were to come up with new legislation. It was actually the National Party that suggested it be rolled over. I can remember National members approaching me and asking me whether I would be comfortable with this bill, which I originally opposed, being rolled over. The idea was that they would roll it over until we had seen what the Electoral Finance Bill would do. My position then was that I was trying to get a decent set of rules for everyone. We failed to do that. So our situation is that we cannot be funded, unless we pass this bill, into next year unless we stick with the old rules. If we stick with the old rules, there is no doubt about it that the Auditor-General will ping us and probably freeze our funding. I do not know how we are supposed to operate as MPs. It seems to me that it is unfortunate, because it would be nice to have had a proper set of rules, ideally with bulk funding, proper transparency, and some accountability, with clear rules about what to do in the election period. But sadly that was not the case. For those parties that are voting against this bill, I would ask them to reflect on this: what rules are going to apply to their spending from now until next year’s election? It seems to me that if we vote against this bill, we are saying that we are happy to operate on the rules that the Auditor-General slammed. It is not only that the Auditor-General slammed the rules, but those of us who followed the rules, who got it all certified and ticked off that we were within the rules, got pinged. It seems to me that the ACT party reluctantly has no option but to support this bill. It is a second-best option. We have worked assiduously with the other parties to try to come up with a decent set of rules. Unfortunately, agreement has not been achieved around this Parliament. I make the point that it was the National Party that suggested we roll this bill over, until the Electoral Finance Bill is passed. It was the National Party’s suggestion, so I do not want to hear any criticism from those members. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Pot Kettle Black

Here is Annette King in Parliament on 15 May 1997 following Rt Hon Winston Peters touching Hon John Banks on his arm; shoulder or lapel:

Hon. ANNETTE KING (NZ Labour---Rongotai): Within 3 minutes of the
announcement on television last night of the Privileges Committee's
decision, the phone in my parliamentary office was ringing. I was
berated by an irate member of the public who was astounded that one
of the highest-ranked leaders of the land could be found guilty of
assault and behaviour unbecoming of a member of Parliament and walk
away with the proverbial wet-bus-ticket slap. I have to say that I am
not happy with the signal this decision sends to young people in New
Zealand, to the public, and to criminals. It says to them that
aggressive, angry, obnoxious behaviour and violence are OK if one's
name is Winston Peters or if one is the Deputy Prime Minister and a
Cabinet Minister. But nothing has changed for the ordinary people of
New Zealand. The full weight of the law would come down on them.