Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13231] 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time 
. In considering what is actually quite a straightforward piece of legislation which simply extends the expiry date of the current legislative framework from 31 December this year to 1 July 2009 it is very interesting to look at who so far has spoken against the bill. This bill relates exclusively to parliamentary matters. The Opposition spokesperson on such matters is the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee. Mr Brownlee is not known around the House it is fair to say for being someone who hides his light behind a bushel. He is not known for being a shy member of Parliament. Yet despite this he has not contributed at all to the debate on this bill and there has to be a reason for that. 
The reason Gerry Brownlee has not spoken at all on the debate on this bill is that if he did speak he would have to admit not only that the National Party secretly supports this bill but actually that it was that party’s own idea. To use Mr Brownlee’s actual words from question time less than 2 weeks ago: “… National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period.” Without Mr Brownlee in the House National’s charismatic team of Tony Ryall and Nick Smith have been trying to explain this away. They have come up with all sorts of creative explanations for what Mr Brownlee meant. But his comments make the matter quite clear: National supports a rollover to the current legislative framework. Of course it does; it was National’s suggestion. The simple reason that the National shadow Leader of the House has not spoken in this debate is that to do so would be to give away National’s dirty secret. Despite that party’s bluff and bluster its members actually support this bill; they actually use it and they actually need it. 
The other reason we know that National does not really oppose this bill is that National members keep spending the money that the Parliamentary Service provides for communication services. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Get out of here—do they? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that it is terrible. We have seen the now infamous “nick4nelson” pamphlet. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Nick for Nelson? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The “nick4Nelson” pamphlet. It is pretty rough on the eye but it calls on people to change the Government. There is only one way people can change the Government in New Zealand if they believe in the rule of law and that is to use their vote to do it. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: So who’s paying the money? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Woolerton asked if Nick Smith used taxpayers’ money to pay for it. Yes he did. It is an exceptionally revealing document because it not only says “nick4nelson” and why New Zealand needs a new Government but on the inside cover lists about 10 people who are praising Nick Smith for his work as the local MP. What is insightful about that is that for most of us who have the privilege of being constituency members simply helping people is reward enough in itself. But for Nick Smith it means going around to get quotes from people about how wonderful he is and then asking the taxpayer to pay to publicise those quotes on a pamphlet and distribute it. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Does it give membership details? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No it does not give membership details but it does say “www.nick4nelson.co.nz” and it asks people to change the Government. Equally the chief Opposition whip Anne Tolley has sent a survey form around her electorate asking people not only who they intend to vote for at the next election but who they voted for at the last election. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does Bill English know that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Bill English knows all about this because Bill English knows how these rules work. He is an expert on how this bill works because he knows how to spend Parliamentary Service money for communication purposes better than any other member of this House. Bill English knew that when he was the leader of the National Party. So despite all the claims of outrage from National speakers opposite they keep spending money from parliamentary resources on the very things they say we should not be able to spend the money on. 
Given that they really support the bill they have had to come up with all kinds of imaginative reasons to oppose it. First they tried to claim that somehow this bill changes the rules from what everyone thought they always were. It does not. The bill has a very simple purpose: to extend the understanding until 1 July 2009. It shifts the date for the expiry of the rules determining what is happening right now—rules that Nick Smith is using rules that Anne Tolley is using rules that Bill English used with great gusto in 2002. We need only look at the election pledge pamphlet that Bill English issued in that fateful year when he had responsibility for the National Party together with Nick Smith and Tony Ryall when they were the young bright leaders of their party. I have in front of me a pamphlet that they put out as their commitment to their country—the pledge commitment that went out from the National Party during the year of the 2002 election campaign. There is a big House of Representatives crest on it and they used the pamphlet to communicate with voters. 
Hon Bill English 
: It was legal! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr English says that it was legal; that it was within the rules of the time. He could still go and put this pamphlet out now under the rules that he is voting against and saying are such terrible things for us to have. It was a highly political document on which Bill English set out his 2002 promises for that year’s election campaign. In fairness to Mr English it did not solicit votes it did not ask for donations and it did not ask people to join the National Party—because nobody joined the National Party in 2002; in fact people were leaving it in great droves. It was a highly political document paid for by Parliamentary Service’s money. That was the understanding that we had all previously operated under. 
The National members are now describing in the House that such action is corrupt. Bill English said it was legal back then in 2002 as though his own pledge commitment was alright. OK he does not want to talk about his 2002 commitment but let us look at what the National Party is doing in 2007. I have in front of me a 2007 publication from somebody called John Key the leader of the National Party who is borrowing Hillary Clinton’s phrase “Join the conversation.” There is a big photo of John Key the National Party logo the National Party website and on the National Party website there are media releases from people who are saying how good National’s policies are. In question time today Mr English said it was terrible that on a taxpayer-funded website there might be a media release relating to the policy of a party. Yet the very website that John Key asks people to go to is stacked full of highly partisan vote-gathering media releases from the National Party. That was funded this year by the National Party from Parliamentary Service along with the “Change the Government … nick4nelson” leaflet. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They’re saying it’s not good for us—it’s illegal—but for them it’s great. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Duynhoven makes a good point. They want to have one law for some people; they want to be able to keep these laws for themselves and not for other people. I want to know from Nick Smith who knows a lot about judicial matters whether this is corrupt legislation. If it is not corrupt now in 2007 why should it be corrupt after 31 December? 
Hon Member 
: Because it’s an election year. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: So in election year John Key does not plan to communicate with the voters who put him into Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not true! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: “That’s not true!” said Mr Bill English. So in 2008 he does not want to have to communicate with his own constituents. It is very very revealing when these things come up. I ask the National members if it was corrupt of Bill English to put out a 2002 pledge card pamphlet. Is he now saying as the National members are asserting in this debate that revalidating this law is a terrible corrupt act? Nick Smith is using his usual over-the-top phrases that none of his own colleagues believe in when he says them much less the public or other MPs. If that is the case I ask members whether Bill English should pay back what was spent in 2002 under the rules we were operating under at that time. Of course he does not think he should have to because the National members do not hold themselves to the same rules that they want to hold other MPs to in this House. 
 The other imaginative argument that National members have run is that somehow this bill has changed the rules relating to the accounting of parliamentary spending under the Electoral Act. That self-described electoral law expert—that is what he called himself to the media—Tony Ryall chaired the select committee with regard to the Electoral Act. Those members know that the Electoral Act passed by National makes it absolutely clear that communications by MPs in their roles as MPs rather than as candidates do not count towards election spending. National MPs know that—it is their law and nothing in this bill changes it. 
They have also been busy rewriting history and talking about the fact that laws relating to the electoral system have only ever progressed on a bipartisan basis. The reality is that Labour has tried to reach consensus on this bill. Indeed six of the eight parties in Parliament support this bill because we have engaged in this process in good faith. The great irony is that despite the fact that six of the eight parties are supporting the bill—and the National Party is one of the two parties not supporting it—the National Party is the single biggest beneficiary of the law that is being passed with this third reading debate this afternoon. National is the party that receives the most money from the Parliamentary Service yet National is saying that members of Parliament in 2008 should not communicate with their constituents. 
I want to hear from the next National Party speaker as to whether these surveys that are going out asking people what party they voted for at the last election and who they are voting for at the next election paid for by Parliamentary Service will be issued in 2008. I guarantee we do not get an answer on that question because National members plan to keep on doing what they have always done. The National Party needs this bill to pass its third reading more than any other party in Parliament and those members sit there with their imaginative arguments trying to argue both sides of the coin even though they cannot wait to keep ploughing into Parliamentary Service resources in that regard. 
This bill provides clear transparent and fair rules so that all MPs can continue doing their jobs. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The only elucidation that came from that speech was the fact that we just heard 10 minutes of talk about the National Party and not one total minute about the content of this bill. This bill is all about the Labour Party being up its old tricks. New Zealanders know that the member who has just resumed his seat would not be in this Parliament if the Labour Party had not stolen $800000 of taxpayers’ money and spent it on the pledge card. Those members stole $800000 of taxpayers’ money. They had to pay it back. They had been told by the Chief Electoral Officer that if they spent the taxpayers’ money on the pledge card they would have to include that money in their election expenses. The Labour Party members said they would include it in election expenses. In the end—and it is a summary of this bill—they did not include it in their expenses and that is what this bill is all about. 
This bill is all about allowing the Labour Party to repeat the pledge card rort of 2005. Hand in hand with the Electoral Finance Bill this bill provides for the Labour Party to spend taxpayers’ money right up until election day with complete abandon and no regard whatsoever for the rules that have previously existed in Parliament. What the National Opposition has said is that we should have the rules that applied before the 2005 general election. Those rules were clear and understood. Those rules made it clear that if a party spent taxpayers’ money on electioneering that was illegal and would have to be declared in its election expense but the Labour Party ignored those rules completely. It was found to have stolen $800000 of taxpayers’ money. It subsequently stole the 2005 election. 
That has allowed Labour to get the red printing presses working overtime. We asked a number of questions in the House about this never-ending slew of material coming out of the Labour Party. We asked whether that would carry on in an election period. Here is what was amazing and this is what this bill does. If these brochures I am holding up were put out by a Labour Party MP in the week of the election they would not count as an election expense as a result of this bill. But wait for this—if a Labour Party candidate who is not a member of Parliament puts out these pamphlets they are counted as an election expense. They are counted as an election expense if a Labour Party candidate who is not a member of Parliament puts them out. Dr Cullen would not answer this question so let us hear an answer from the next speaker from the Labour Party. What is the principle that allows the Labour Party to say that because this brochure is put out by a member of Parliament it is not counted as an election expense but if this brochure together with a picture of a woman who purports to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand is put out by a Labour Party candidate then it is caught as an election expense? There is no way that that can be justified. It is Labour up to its old tricks again rorting the system in favour of its own party. 
This bill is not about what is being spent today. This bill is about what the Labour Party plans to spend in an election year and about changing the electoral law to favour Labour. Everyone in New Zealand knows that the Electoral Finance Bill and this bill are all about advantaging Labour. Labour members will do anything say anything and spend anything to win the next election. What we know is that their union mates spent well over $1.5 million at the last election by estimates in support of the Labour Party. We know they will do everything possible to secure a victory at the next election. 
Gerry Brownlee has been absolutely clear on this bill. We do not believe that this bill should be passed to allow this practice during an election period. We do not know why members of this House want to give existing parties and members of Parliament an electoral privilege that they are not prepared to give to anybody else. There is silence. Why would the Government want to give an electoral privilege only to members of Parliament and existing parties and not to other people who are standing in an election? Let us understand what that means. Labour is exempting only members of Parliament from the coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You chaired the select committee. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a good point. I did chair the Electoral Law Committee—after 1993—that finalised the MMP legislation. It was done in a multiparty way and both National and Labour voted for the legislation. I know that before I was the chairman and a member of that committee the committee worked very closely with the Hon David Caygill the senior Labour member on that committee to come up with a bill that both parties could support. Members of that committee realised that if something is done to a person or party today that person or party can come back and do the same thing the next time. That is the reason why with the Standing Orders and other procedures in this House we always rely on a multiparty or all-party agreement to achieve this. Governments have almost always realised that there will come a time when they are in Opposition and they would not want the victors of each election deciding what the rules will be. That is the reason why the two main parties and others in this House have generally more or less agreed on the nomenclature of our electoral systems. They have agreed because they know that it would be bad for democracy to have a system where the victors change the rules after every election. 
It does not worry Helen Clark Michael Cullen and Annette King—all those ageing people on the Labour front bench—because they are going at the next election. They will not be standing in 2011 but I would be worried if I was one of the younger people in the second and third rows. Labour’s intent on forcing this bill says to the Parliament and the people of New Zealand that Labour is happy with a system where the victors can write the rules to suit themselves. That is a boot that can fit on two feet. 
That is the reason why parties in this Parliament have always come to a more or less multiparty agreement on important electoral law.That was certainly the case on the Electoral Law Committee when we did the MMP legislation during the mid-1990s. We wanted a law that would endure that was durable and that enjoyed the confidence of the main parties if not all the parties in Parliament at that time. We are going to end up with this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill with legislation that will not endure. This bill will not endure. The Electoral Finance Bill will not endure because we know that there are significant parties in this Parliament that do not agree with what the Government has done. The Government could have sought a multiparty bipartisan agreement as was the case when I was chairing the Electoral Law Committee. That is what we did. We worked closely with Labour members to make sure we had legislation that would endure and legislation that would not change every time a new party took the Treasury benches. That is not good for democracy. That is why New Zealanders have a sense that this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill are just not right. They are just not fair. They are anti-democratic. They are all about entrenching the privileges that Labour has as Government. 
We all know about the clause that Labour did not want the public to see in the select committee. We will hear more about that on Thursday. The public knows that law like this should be done with the agreement of the whole of Parliament in order for the legislation to endure. We do not want New Zealand to be a banana republic a Zimbabwe of the South Pacific where the victors change the laws to favour themselves. But that is what this Labour Party is doing. It is inviting future Governments to change the law to suit themselves. I for one do not agree with that. I think we should have a law that endures and is fair for all New Zealanders. It does not matter to guys on the other side of the Chamber who will not be here in a year’s time. 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 as this Government is jackbooting over the rights of all New Zealanders with this attack on the democratic values that most New Zealanders hold dear. The few exceptions are on the benches opposite. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was a tired old retread from the National Party called Tony Ryall. He had the temerity to talk about people who have been here a long time and are old in face. There is such a thing called a mirror that I might give him for Christmas which is not too far away. The debate gets more and more curious the more we listen to the National members on the other side of the Chamber. The problem of course is that they have completely misread and misrepresented the bill. This is a very very simple little bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Simple rort; it’s a rort. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will come on to the rort from the member called Nick Smith. We are going to talk about him in a minute. I want to set the framework here because it is really important and people at home might not have understood what this bill is about after hearing from that tired old retread Tony Ryall who spoke previously. The point is that at the moment there is a framework for spending Government money if one is a member of Parliament. It is very very simple and all members of Parliament do it. They have electorate offices public advertising in their local newspapers they put out information and there are rules around that. Basically the rules say that we are not allowed to electioneer with it which means we are not allowed to elicit a vote we are not allowed to say “vote for Labour” “vote for me” or “vote for the party”. They also say that we are not allowed to collect money or ask for money. All of these things are called electioneering. Do members know what? That appears in this legislation that we are debating. It states that we are not allowed to do those things. 
So what this legislation does is say that we tried to get some agreement on some rules about what should be spent. In fact the National Party said “Yes we’re in.” then it said “No we’re not.” We said: “Well let’s roll these rules over.” They said: “Oh yeah. We’ll do that.” Then “Oh no we won’t.” they said. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where’s Gerry? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes Gerry Brownlee said that. So the problem we have now is that the framework expires at the end of this year. What we are doing is just simply rolling it over until 2009 until we can get some new rules in place. So the framework does not change and electioneering is not allowed. National members now are outraged by this legislation. They are appalled by it. They are outraged and appalled by this legislation because it allows members of Parliament to spend taxpayers’ money. 
There is a question I have not been able to get an answer to yet from anybody and I am going to start firstly with Nathan Guy. Does Nathan Guy support this legislation or not? We get no answer when we ask these direct questions. I assume by the outrage and appalling behaviour that those members have displayed over there that somehow they are going to vote against this legislation. So the next question is if they are going to vote against this legislation does it mean that Nathan Guy once this legislation is passed will not put out anything like this pamphlet I am holding into the letterboxes of people in the Otaki area? He says in the pamphlet “What you think does matter”. He goes on to say “Keeping in touch is important.” There is a bit of a questionnaire about all sorts of things on the back of the pamphlet. One of the other things he says here which is really nice of him is “To save costs I’m generally sending one form per household.” notwithstanding the fact that this is enormously expensive. But what this legislation does is it allows people to do this. 
I say to Nathan Guy that if he votes against this legislation he needs to stand up in this Parliament and say “As a result of my vote in Parliament I am not going to spend one single cent of taxpayers’ money next year putting out stuff like this.” If he is going to be consistent he should say “Yes I am. I am not going to put out anything next year. I am so outraged by what the Government is doing in this legislation that I have voted against it.” I do not think that will happen. I do not think he will stand up and say “I oppose this legislation and I’m not going to put out anything next year that is funded by the taxpayer.” I bet he does not do that. 
Strangely enough there is a member of Parliament up north called Anne Tolley. When I pick up this pamphlet that she has put out which starts with “What you think does matter” I wonder where I have read that before. I go back to Nathan Guy’s pamphlet which reads “What you think does matter”. Methinks that these two pamphlets are the same. I turn them over and they are. The only difference is that the names are different. I notice down the bottom of the pamphlet it says “Privacy notice. Supplying this information is voluntary. The information is being collected by Nathan Guy in his capacity as a member of Parliament”—which is what this bill does; it says that if one is a member of Parliament one is allowed to do this kind of thing—“and will be used for related activities.” I wonder what they are. It sounds sniffingly like— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Feedback. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It sounds like a little feedback and “maybe we might send you a little pamphlet about what National is going to do”. We know what that means. Nathan Guy and Anne Tolley are outraged by this legislation. They are going to vote against it but will not say whether they will do this next year when according to them this is an outrage. 
Of course there is Nick Smith who always has a lot to say about this kind of matter. Here we have a little pamphlet from him that says “Why New Zealand needs a new Government”. Of course the fact of the matter is that New Zealand has a fabulous one at the moment which is why this is probably false advertising. But the fact of the matter is that Nick Smith is going to vote I presume against this legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You bet. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he is. He is going to vote against it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A principled man. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: He is a principled man. He is going to vote against it. I ask Nick Smith then once this legislation is passed next year is he going to put out information similar to this? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the member yield? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I am asking the member a question. Will the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the member’s question. There is a simple procedure in Parliament’s rules and it is for the member to yield. I am happy for the member to yield to answer his question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not going to do that. I know what the rules are. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK. That is fine. The member is not prepared to yield. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The point is that the member will not answer the question. It is just a simple thing. He can just call out across the House yes or no. He will not do that. He will not answer because he knows that next year he is going to put out information like this in his electorate. So I ask the member Nick Smith if he is going to put out information like that why he is voting against this legislation that allows it. 
Hon Member 
: There’s a word for that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well there is a word but we are not allowed to mention that word Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Absolutely. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is exactly right because I know what the rules are. But the fact of the matter is that a word in the dictionary describes what Mr Nick Smith is doing. He now has said of course that he will vote against this bill but we know that next year against all the principled outrage and moral indignation that we will probably hear from him in a minute he will do exactly what the bill does; that is a strange thing. So I ask Nick Smith again. 
I have here an article about John Key’s “Join the conversation” cards. So I ask National members who are outraged by this legislation and who presumably are going to vote against this legislation whether we will see John Key putting out any information funded by the taxpayer next year—yes or no? Well is that not interesting? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is National’s deputy leader. He should know. You know I will hazard a guess; I will take a punt that the National Party will vote against this legislation and then—surprise surprise—will use taxpayers’ money which the legislation allows them to do to put out information like this and information as on this brochure: “My commitment” from former leader Bill English. 
Here is another one: “Ten steps National’s first Budget will take”. The leaflet is funded by the National Party. How do we know—because it has the little parliamentary crest on it. This leaflet is funded by the National Party. All we want is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: By the taxpayer. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is funded by the taxpayer. All we want is a simple question answered. If the National Party is so appalled by this legislation—which will have the support of the majority of the parties in the House—and it has a right to be and if it is going to vote against this legislation which it has a right to do does that mean therefore that it will not spend one single solitary cent of taxpayers’ money next year? The question simply is yes or no. All I want is one National member to tell me yes or no. Of course they will not say yes or no because we know that the answer is yes. So the public of New Zealand need to know that National is voting against the legislation but will spend the money this legislation allows. And there is a word for it that we are not allowed to mention in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In 1988 a Labour member of Parliament was found guilty of committing a corrupt practice. We need to be quite plain today that this law makes what was corrupt now lawful. Let me recite the offence of that period because it speaks volumes about the importance of this debate today. Reg Boorman back in the time of the previous Labour Government was trying to secure his re-election in the Wairarapa electorate and he extensively used his parliamentary budget to win that election. The judge ruled that that was a corrupt practice—that he had breached the $20000 limit in using taxpayers’ money. But this bill says that it is quite OK to use parliamentary money and more significantly when tied up with the Electoral Finance Bill it makes such expenditure outside the $20000 limit. 
Did anybody in 1988—anybody in the media or any member of the Labour Party—defend Reg Boorman and say that his rort was OK? No they did not; they said that it was corrupt. And that corrupt practice prevented Reg Boorman from ever being able to stand for Parliament again. That has been the settled law through all the period since. Yet through this sneaky dirty bill and under a fragile majority in this House we are today to make what was corrupt right. But I say that it does not; it was corrupt then and it is corrupt today. I also say that this— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What a load of rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I ask Mr Woolerton because he and his colleagues said to the House— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’m saying you are talking a load of rubbish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well which part does the member agree with? Does he agree that Reg Boorman was kicked out of this Parliament for a corrupt practice? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’re exaggerating. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well no he was not? I have not exaggerated a single piece of history that has occurred. Let us take the next chapter of history. Labour in the 2005 election put out this pledge card I am holding up. It breached the law in two respects. In relation to the first the Auditor-General said it was wrong to spend $820000 of public money on this pledge card. But even more significantly the Chief Electoral Officer at that time David Henry said that this pledge card should have been included in Labour’s $2 million limit. Let me just recite those numbers. The limit that any party can spend on campaigning was $2 million; this card exceeded that amount by $800000; so Labour broke the law—broke the law—by not including it. It broke the law not just by a little bit by a thousand dollars or two but by $800000. Yet today this sick desperate Labour Party is passing a law to make both those illegal acts lawful. This bill will mean that it will be OK for the Labour Party to rort the public purse for another pledge card. That will be OK. But even more significantly the $800000 spent on the pledge card will not be included in the campaign limit. 
Mr Swain asked this question: will National use the provisions of this law to produce material next year? Let us just look at the numbers. Mr Swain is saying that $17 million—which amount is just by coincidence; Labour has increased the budget by 20 percent—can be spent and is controlled by this bill and at the same time that party is saying that I and the National Party cannot spend more than $2 million of public money on campaigning. This is about $17 million compared with $2 million. It will appal me that I will not be able to work hard with the volunteers in my electorate—citizens who want to change the Government quite legitimately. They will not be able to run fashion shows as we did this year or do as we did on this Saturday when we had a fundraiser at the A and P show. We will not be allowed to spend that money on campaigning but we will be able to spend the $17 million out of the public purse. I say to members opposite that that is a corruption of our election laws. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’ll have $7 million—$7 million! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And I say to Mr Woolerton that I am damned proud of this country’s democratic heritage. I am proud of the fact that we were the first country to allow New Zealanders regardless of wealth and regardless of race to be able to vote for members of this Parliament. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’re in the money—you’re in the money. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am proud of the fact I tell Mr Woolerton that we are the sixth oldest continuous parliamentary democracy in the world. I am proud of the fact that we were the first country in the world to give women the vote. But today I hide my head in shame because what we are doing through this bill is not just an issue of the next election; we are undermining the democratic heritage of this beautiful country of ours. In a sick partisan act we are skewing the rules solely to help the Labour Party. 
I know that the Labour Party in Nelson is incredibly weak. I know that it has the weakest organisation ever because the people of Nelson have no faith in Labour. But Labour says that it does not care whether it has public support strong branches and strong organisation; it wants the right to be able to fleece the taxpayer and at the same time to shut down anybody else from having a say. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You spent more than any other party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand First says that we need this bill to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Well give us half your $7 million. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that members of Parliament who are honest and decent do not need laws to protect themselves from the Auditor-General. Members on this side of the House reject this bill and we are happy to follow the rules of the Auditor-General. We think the Auditor-General’s judgment about what was proper and what was improper was quite fair. 
I say to members opposite that this bill is about giving the fingers to the Auditor-General and if members of Parliament can give the fingers to the Auditor-General on the abuse of public money then why should officials and health bodies bother considering the Auditor-General? Why should those who work in our councils have respect for the Auditor-General if we in this Parliament say we will just veto him when it suits us? Why should any of our 200000 public servants have respect for the Auditor-General when this bill gives him the fingers and says that Parliament is above the law? 
The tragedy of this bill is that it undermines not only our public respect for systems for the way in which public money should and should not be used but also the very essence of our democracy. I will be OK because I am a sitting member of Parliament; I will be able to use the public purse. But what about the average citizen who wants to compete to be a member of this House? This bill is all about creating a closed shop for Parliament. I know that the trade unions of members opposite have long been into closed shops creating a select club and grabbing the powers and privileges that go with it but we in the National Party say that it is morally wrong. It is morally bankrupt. We should not be overriding law that says that the things covered in this legislation were a corrupt practice. We say that the court decisions that have arisen out of both the Bob Clarkson case and the Reg Boorman case are perfectly able to be followed by this Parliament. We say to members opposite that they overrule the Auditor-General at their peril. 
That is what this bill does. It overrules the independent Auditor-General. Ultimately this bill says one thing: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This bill is a disdain on this House of Parliament. It is a disdain on our proud heritage as a democracy. It is solely about the crude attempts by Labour and Helen Clark unfairly to win a further term because they are not prepared to fight an election on the old rules. They are going to rort the taxpayer. They are going to cheat the rules and sadly this institution of Parliament will be the loser. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that points of order must be raised at the time a matter to be raised occurs but I did not want to interrupt the speaker Nick Smith who was on his feet. During the course of the member’s debate Mr Woolerton continually interjected from an advantageous position not from his normal seat. I just bring to your attention that that is certainly inappropriate in the context of the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe he should have raised the matter during the course of the speech because members cannot move to facilitate interjection. I did call the member to order several times. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is a very simple bill. Basically it reflects in part the Speaker’s directions. Several MPs—two from National two from Labour and I think one from every other party with the exception of Progressive—have sat down on a regular basis for quite some time and debated and discussed the Speaker’s directions and they have been amended accordingly. When they were recently signed off the Auditor-General’s opinion was sought. I am not sure whether his opinion was formally sought or whether the Speaker spoke with him privately; I understand that a National member spoke with him privately. He agrees with the sign-off— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He does not. 
PETER BROWN 
: He agrees with the sign-off of the Speaker’s directions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He does not agree with this bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not talking about this bill. If the member listened for a bit he might learn something because he has misunderstood this bill totally. What he said publicly in Parliament which will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 is almost 100 percent wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Explain. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will endeavour to explain. 
The Speaker’s directions are reflected in this bill. This bill tells us as do the Speaker’s directions what the funding entitlements are for parliamentary purposes. I will not read that because it is self-explanatory. But the bill also goes on to explain what electioneering is in the time of an election period. If in that period a member of Parliament goes out and produces a communication—which one could say was a brochure a pamphlet or whatever—that explicitly seeks support for a party or a member then he or she is deemed to be electioneering. If a member seeks a vote for that party or that member he or she is electioneering. If that member encourages a person to become a member of a political party he or she is electioneering. It is quite quite concise and it is quite sensible. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does Labour’s pledge card meet that definition? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is questioning the pledge card. Now I cannot recall what the pledge card is but I have here a pledge brochure. I cannot find a great deal of difference between what I have been told about the pledge card and what I have been told about this pledge brochure. This brochure was paid for by the National Party out of its parliamentary funding. It is a huge brochure— 
Hon Member 
: So the taxpayer paid. 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Auditor-General say about that publication from National? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is interjecting to a degree his colleague has objected to. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I just asked the question: what did the Auditor-General say about National? 
PETER BROWN 
: When that member was asked a question he would not answer it. I am answering some of his questions but I am not wasting my 10 minutes on a member who is totally confused and does not know what he is talking about. 
The last time Nick Smith spoke in this House he told members and people in the gallery that he could use the $64000 he got each year to run his electorate office—or offices because as a constituent MP he is entitled to two or expected to have two—to advance himself. That is absolute poppycock and he knows it. He knows that that money is to pay for the lease of his two offices to pay for cleaning them to pay for the power they use and for the equipment in them and to pay for the surveys the National Party puts out from time to time. Those surveys are put out on an individual basis but we know they are produced by the National Party’s head office. He is also allowed to spend part of that money on advertising the fact that he is a resident of Nelson that he has an office there and that he runs a clinic from time to time. That is what he has the money for. But he has told the public of New Zealand that he will use it to advance himself totally. He knows he would not be allowed to get away with that. This bill in part stops that practice from occurring. He knows that this bill in part stops that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Under this bill I can. 
PETER BROWN 
: No the member cannot. He should try to find it out. What I would like you to do— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Not you Mr Assistant Speaker. What I would like the member’s party to do—and I might propose an amendment to the Speaker’s rulings in relation to the National Party in particular—is to present audited accounts to Parliamentary Service to see how its members use their money because it is absolutely disgraceful that the member is telling the public of New Zealand that under the bill he gets $64000 a year to advance himself. That is the impression he has given and that is not right and the member and his colleagues know it. His colleagues know that they do not get that money to advance themselves. They have to have an office they have to have all the equipment in the office and they have to have the office cleaned and what have you. 
It is legitimate for a Government to put out brochures to tell the public of New Zealand what they are entitled to do under any specific piece of legislation. That is the correct thing to do. The member or an earlier member—I think it was Tony Ryall—said that if a Labour Party candidate distributed those brochures to people he or she would be in breach of this law. That is rubbish and Tony Ryall knows it—and Nick Smith knows it. Nick Smith shakes his head but yes he does know it. He has been here 17 years and he does not know how the system works? I do not believe that. 
I have been critical of the Auditor-General and I stand by everything I said. In the document he produced early on in the piece—in June 2005 I think it was—in which he apparently was saying that he would take a tougher line on and a closer look at how we spend our money during the election period he has the heading “Complementary rules and standards should apply”. I will read to the House part of what is under this bullet point. I know I have read it before but maybe the honourable members from the National Party will take note of it. It says here that rules and standards for publication should “identify clear and workable procedures for the approval of publicity before publication takes place;”. It goes on to say a few other things. New Zealand First was caught by the Auditor-General largely because of this brochure I am holding. New Zealand First produced this brochure which outlines our policies. It does not ask for a vote it does not ask for people to become party members and it does not ask for money. It does not ask for anything. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s fine. 
PETER BROWN 
: The brochure outlines New Zealand First policies. That is what we are meant to do. Bill English is acknowledging that and I thank him for that. 
Let me make it quite clear that our people went along to Parliamentary Service and asked whether this brochure was OK. We sought permission before publication. We went further than that and asked the Chief Electoral Office whether it was OK and we got a clean bill of health on both counts. We followed the rules that the Auditor-General recommended and then we found out we were captured by the Auditor-General’s ruling in his report entitled  
Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election 
. We followed the rules we followed the procedure but we were captured. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The Auditor-General’s report came after the event. 
PETER BROWN 
: As the honourable member says that was after the event. 
We could not have done anything other than what we did. I do not know whom we could have asked. Our people asked for permission conscientiously and diligently but we were captured. The Auditor-General told the Hon Peter Dunne that two parties in this Parliament did not break any rules. He said to Peter Dunne that those two parties were United Future and New Zealand First. I understand the Hon Peter Dunne asked the Auditor-General whether he would put that in his report and the Auditor-General said no. 
We welcome this bill because it reinforces in legislation what we have put in the Speaker’s directions. This legislation will make clear for everybody involved in the next election the terms for using parliamentary funds as expenditure. We welcome this bill and we support it wholeheartedly at its third reading. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 There is not really any alternative to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill if Parliament is to operate properly particularly in the 3 months leading up to polling day. Every party in this House will be in the same bind which is why it is so disappointing that there is not unanimity in this House over this question. Instead it has become a political football even though we just do not have any alternative. 
On the Parliamentary Service Commission all parties including National worked as best they could to try to sort the implications of the Auditor-General’s decision in relation to spending in the last 3 months before the last election. If we do not clarify this issue through this legislation all we will be able to do in the last 3 months before an election is to sit in our offices—if we have offices in the cities outside of Parliament—and do individual casework because it is difficult to sort this out in terms of the Auditor-General’s decision without clear legislation or reference to the Speaker’s direction. At one end as the legislation makes clear we can cut out anything that calls for a vote for a person or a party that calls for people to join a party or that calls for money for that party. Those things are clearly ruled out in this legislation. We can clearly establish that if any advertising—particularly during that 3-month period leading up to the election that the Auditor-General is so worried about—calls for any of those four things then that advertising is not parliamentary business and is not paid for out of a parliamentary budget. 
At the other end of the spectrum—and some of the Auditor-General’s rulings are confusing as the previous speaker Peter Brown indicated—if we are dealing purely with policy and members of Parliament explaining policy then that should not be included in this ban. If it is included we run the risk of virtually the whole of Parliament closing down and all the staff being sacked for the last 3 months before the general election. 
In between those two poles of things calling for votes members or money and things dealing with policy there is a whole grey area in the middle of what we might call sloganeering. This includes using billboards for sloganeering that do not necessarily tell people to vote for the National Party the Green Party the Labour Party or whatever but that are sort of in a bit of a grey area in the middle. That still has to be sorted out—we still have some work to do. We have not had time to work it all through in this Parliament before establishing rules for the next election so we had to roll things over and pass this bill. 
As has come up in Parliament today the Greens have an idea of people outside of Parliament a body representing the citizenry—we call it a Citizens’ Assembly—somehow getting to grips with this issue as well. When MPs approach this issue they do so with a certain bias that comes with being in an incumbent party and a certain vested interest. It would be good to have that independent look at it. It is true and it cannot be completely avoided that incumbent parties do have a certain advantage in the election period. We have resources—communications resources travel resources office resources—based on incumbency which gives us an advantage perhaps over parties that are not represented in Parliament and are trying to get into Parliament or individuals who are trying to get into Parliament. That is a structural problem so we have to take advice. I think the Citizens’ Assembly is a way to help to achieve that and to redress some of that imbalance. I do not think it can ever be completely redressed but I think we have to proceed in an objective way. 
I think we should work together on this issue so it is disappointing that all the parties are not working together on it and that some parties in this House today are using the issue as a political battering ram when we are really all in the same boat in that respect. So hopefully we can all work together support this bill and try to fine-tune it over the next year or two. Thank you. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. A week ago today the Maori Party’s view on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill was clearly set out by Dr Pita Sharples. As with anything we in the Maori Party are involved with particularly in regard to issues in this House we take this issue very seriously as indeed we do the serious business of humour. 
Last year we received a notice that we had committed a crime. The crime was advertising and publicity expenditure deemed outside appropriation for the 3 months prior to the general election of 17 September 2005 and here is the notice. As there is no word for “guilt” in te reo Maori we could only acknowledge this and say: “Ae i raro i nga ture Paremata i he matou.”—that we were wrong. The Maori Party did not make up excuses. We did not seek legal advice on how to convince others that our wrong was in fact a right. “Fair enough” we thought and we fessed up and paid up. The crime was centred on an advertisement in a local paper and it was for the amount of $53.66 including GST. 
On 16 August 2006 we dipped into our Maori Party and staff kai kitty and duly paid in cash the amount of $53.70 for which we received a letter of receipt. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. This letter of receipt which was received on 17 August 2006 was headed “Receipt of illegal election advertising expenses” and it stated: “we confirm receipt of funds representing the refund of illegal election expenditure as outlined in the Auditor general’s report. Please find attached your tax receipt for $53.70. This represents $47.73 plus GST. Regards …” blah-blah-blah. 
When we discussed this crime of expenditure outside of appropriations we thought we might invoke what is normal for the Office of Treaty Settlements and this House in settling Treaty claims. We thought 2 percent of $53.70 would be a satisfactory amount in repaying the debt which would bring the compensation payment to about $1.07. We chose not to do so as we were not prepared for the outcry that would surely and rightly have followed. We imagined the headlines of “Maori Party refuses to pay in full”. So we decided to pay the paltry sum of $53.70. We decided that it did not really warrant that sort of headline so we paid in full. We congratulate the Hon Jim Anderton and his Progressive party on being the only political party in this House that did not act illegally. Most other parties have paid but there are still one or two that to date have failed to put their hands in their pockets. The interest on their debts must be building I am sure. 
What has disappointed us most is that first some people still believe that Kevin Brady the Auditor-General was wrong; and secondly even worse this House has passed retrospective legislation to make legitimate that which was illegal. We sure know how to look after ourselves and we have a wonderful ability to rationalise our behaviour. 
The question we in the Maori Party have is about the letter that refers to the refund of illegal election advertising expenses and whether the other parties have received a letter headed just like it. I wonder why it is that we in the Maori Party have not received a letter to say that all is now forgiven and that it has all been made legal and above board. As we have stated previously although this bill is portrayed as merely being a rollover of existing legislation to 2009 and although pledges have been given that what happened in 2005 will not happen again what the Maori Party knows only too well as students of history and of power is that the ends will always justify the means for those who crave power. History has shown that some people will do almost anything to retain their positions. The funny thing that I have found interesting in the debate thus far is that both major parties seem to blame each other yet they both tested the rules to the limit and were found wanting. 
Much reference has been made in this House to Nicky Hager’s book  
The Hollow Men 
 as we have debated this bill and its mate the Electoral Finance Bill which we will be debating before the House winds up for the year. Both of these bills have rightly been linked but it is the book  
The Hollow Men 
 that I want to make reference to. The book alludes to the notion of what is referred to as “wedge politics” the politics of division and fear; the politics whereby one group is cynically set up to be feared. It is a type of politics that has again been seen on our television screens and in our newspapers and this time around it has also been directly experienced by the men women and children of Ruatoki and Tuhoe. It is a sort of politics that utilises a technique called dog whistling which refers to the notion that certain messages will be transmitted and heard by a specific set of the audience. They are subliminal racialising messages that politicians use and that are the last words to be remembered by the listener. 
In the last few weeks we have been subjected to wedge politics and dog whistling straight out of  
The Hollow Men 
 which provided a damning account of gross manipulation of the public in the interests of power. By way of example I ask members to think back if they will to the press conference of Monday morning 15 October when the nation was advised of terrorist training camps in Tuhoe of Molotov cocktails of napalm bombs of military-style weapons and of threats to the lives of the Rt Hon Helen Clark the honourable John Key and the President of the United States George W Bush. When leave to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was denied the Prime Minister went on the offensive stating that those arrested were still facing very serious firearms charges. All of this happened while the issue was sub judice and while much effort was being made in this House to ensure that members of the Maori Party did not break the sub judice laws in debates. It was then announced that the Hon Parekura Horomia was also a target of assassination. 
Increasingly more and more people are coming to believe that the police raids of recent weeks have been a cynically orchestrated campaign by and for the Labour Government based on the very thing that drove Dr Brash that was practised by Mr John Howard in Australia and that has its origins in Karl Rove the brain of Mr George Bush. The irony is that this divisive and destructive form of politics when published by Nicky Hager was the object of considerable criticism by the Rt Hon Prime Minister and her colleagues who railed on Don Brash following his Orewa speech. But over these last 4 weeks the Prime Minister and her colleagues have been indulging in exactly the same behaviour for exactly the same purposes and it would seem for exactly the same kind of populist result with Labour improving in the latest Fairfax media Nielsen poll this past weekend. 
It would seem that racism despite technically being an illegal practice remains as something to successfully draw on when ratings are down. Don Brash did it to spectacular effect in the year before the last election. Could it be that the Labour Government is following suit? What sort of games will be played out before the next election? I have used this example to make the point that when it comes to power any means will justify the ends. The financial cost of such behaviour will be borne by the people as we in this House set about appropriating money for parliamentary purposes. The cost of wedge politics is always paid by the innocent. This time it was paid by the people young and old of Ruatoki and Tuhoe and those who have dared to challenge it. The question is who will be next. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I welcome this bill and I am very very pleased. I am a person who in elections is extremely careful. I have always been very careful to comply with the provision of the existing Act that sets out the four things that I as a member of this House have always been very careful about. We do not put out anything under parliamentary expenses or using parliamentary money that says “vote for me” “vote for my party” “give us money” or “become a member of our party”. That was drummed into me and if ever I have been unclear I have rung Parliamentary Service or in the case of an election the Chief Electoral Office. This bill spells the rules out even more clearly than does the existing Act. The rules are absolutely clear and there is no room for interpretation. I have a great deal of sympathy for what Peter Brown said earlier in this debate and most of us in this House have been extremely careful to abide by these rules. 
I have in front of me a piece of information sent out by the National Party in 2002 and I understand that Bill English authorised it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s a commitment card. 
DIANNE YATES 
: It is but it is in blue. It is looks very very similar to Labour’s commitment card except it is bigger. It bears the National Party logo and the parliamentary crest which means that it was paid for by Parliament. The information was sent out in 2002 and that was OK; it complied with those four rules. It does not say “Vote for National”; it does not say “Give us money”; it does not say “Join the National Party”; and it does not say “Vote for Bill English” or anybody else. It is exactly the same in form and content as Labour’s pledge card. It was OK in 2002 but suddenly it was not OK in 2005. But I can tell the House that as a member of Parliament I have been very very careful to abide by the laws and I along with many people in this House resent being told by people on the other side and by people perhaps outside this House that we are corrupt and all sorts of things. Most of the members of parties in this House have been very careful to abide by the law. 
I have always been in a very marginal seat and I have been hypercareful to abide by the law. I have checked out that everything I put out was in compliance with that law so I resent some of the comments from the other side of the House. I look forward to the implementation of this bill and know that it will spell out very very clearly particularly for those people who cannot read the previous Act very well what those four rules are. Clause 3(2) provides that under Parliamentary Service funding rules a candidate cannot say: “Vote for me”; “Vote for my party”; “Give us money” or “Become a member of our party”. It is spelt out very clearly and I am very pleased to see it there. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a shame that this debate has come to such a level of deliberate ignorance. When I listen to the Government speakers they do not explain because they cannot bear to the context in which this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill arises. I want to make a couple of particular points about that. 
The first is that we do not need this bill. Parliament has wasted its time for weeks on this bill and its predecessor legislation. We have this bill before us only because of the petulance of Dr Cullen who can never be wrong. Dr Cullen and Helen Clark got caught out by the Auditor-General for breaking the rules. They broke all the rules particularly by breaching the electoral expense cap but the police could not be bothered to investigate—in fact they could not even find the right section of the Act to apply. Dr Cullen and Helen Clark got caught out and then they said: “Well the Auditor-General who caught us out is just trying to smear the Labour Party.” as if that is all he ever did. The Auditor-General they think wakes up in the morning thinking about one thing—the Labour Party. Actually he does not. He wakes up in the morning thinking about good and proper process and how to enforce the rules that he has laid out. 
That is why we have this bill because Labour said: “If the Auditor-General says we’re wrong he must be wrong. And if he says we’re wrong then everyone must be wrong and that is why we need validating legislation.” So they passed validating legislation to validate what we always knew were the rules which we had all kept—generally—except the Labour Party. This bill is just an extension of it. Helen Clark could not stand being wrong because she believes that the Labour Party is always right; that whenever it comes to anything to do with politics the centre of the world is the Labour Party. Our constitutional conventions mean nothing; our electoral law means nothing; and our Auditor-General is on some cheap political smear just because Labour got caught out. 
This bill is a waste of time. It is unnecessary; it is before the House because Michael Cullen and Helen Clark cannot be wrong. That is why National has opposed the bill. It is nothing to do with what is required to run fair and free elections. At least the Government has admitted that the bill just re-enacts the rules as we already had them. That is the first point. 
The second point is that the Labour Party cannot understand the significance for this legislation of changing the regulated period. The laws around electoral finance are always going to have to be a balance between politicians who are dead keen to get their message out the public who must have a role in influencing an election the careful use of public money—all these things have to be balanced alongside common-sense intuitions about the public’s interest in elections and when it really matters. For decades New Zealand has had a law that balanced those out with pretty minor changes supported by all the parties. The core of it was this: for a 3-month period before the election everything could be counted as an electoral expense including that which was spent by MPs. 
What effect did that have on MPs? Well we never quite knew when “3 months before the election” was but it did mean we had to be very careful to meet not only the parliamentary hurdle for the kind of material the member opposite is displaying but the hurdle put down by the Electoral Act. That was a tougher test. So things that we did in March or April we did not do in September or October because that was close to the election that was when the definition of “election expenses” counted and if we broke those rules we were in serious trouble. For 30 years—maybe longer I do not know—that has worked. 
What has changed now is that although the definition for what MPs can spend remains unchanged from what it was traditionally there is now no constraint from the Electoral Act on what MPs do. So we have the ridiculous situation that Tony Ryall pointed out where a document published by a Labour MP that sets out Labour’s policy will be legal during the regulated period—that is all next year—but the same document published by a Labour candidate will be illegal. That means one law for the candidate and one law for the politicians. That is what is at the heart of the dispute about this bill. Parliament is passing this definition of what MPs can spend money on and alongside the Electoral Finance Bill it means that the politicians will have more money fewer rules and more say but the general public will have a lot less money much tighter rules and much less say in the election. That is what is going to happen. 
The Labour Party of course wants one law for Labour and one rule for everybody else. Let us see just how different these definitions are so that people can understand how this whole collection of legislation—the Electoral Finance Bill and this appropriation bill—is all about Labour. Helen Clark cannot stand being wrong so she has fixed that. She is trying to pass this appropriation bill. It makes no practical difference to anything; it just proves that it was the Auditor-General who was wrong not Helen Clark. She did not like people criticising the pledge card so she is passing this bill to make the card legal; she has fixed that. She does not like the idea that people might raise money to attack the Labour Party so she is passing the Electoral Finance Bill; she has fixed that. She does not like the idea that MPs’ spending might be tested by the same law that every other citizen of New Zealand is subject to. She does not like that so she has fixed that. She has passed the legislation to make sure that MPs’ spending is subject just to our own rules—not to the rules that the rest of the country will have to adhere to. 
Let us look at these definitions so that people understand the legislation. The definition in the appropriation bill is the one we are used to for MPs. It is pretty clear and we all know what it is. We can put out almost anything as long as it does not seek support for the election of a particular person or party does not ask for money—we all know that; we cannot send out a parliamentary letter asking for a subscription to a party—and does not encourage someone to become a member. We cannot send out a membership recruitment letter on parliamentary money. That is how politicians see it. They see the rule as being that we can do almost everything except those things. 
The Electoral Finance Bill which is the rule for everybody else is absolutely different. It basically states that we cannot do anything much in case—can members feel the difference—it might encourage a voter to vote or not vote for a party or candidate. It also states—and this is the new bit which the Minister of Justice does not know about because she has not read the bill; what happened to the competent Minister of everything—that we cannot do anything that encourages a voter to vote for a party or a type of party that is indicated by views positions or policies. That is almost anything. I say to the Government that if it believes that that should be the rule for the public then it should put it in this bill. The Government should put it in the appropriation bill. Why did the Government not put in the appropriation bill that an MP cannot send out anything on public money if it will encourage a voter to vote by reference to views positions or policies? We know why. It is because that would rule out most of what MPs put out. That is why it is not there. 
Parliament will pass this legislation with a low level for MPs and real problems for the public. That shows us just how Labour thinks it is the centre of the world. During the last couple of elections it introduced the “waka jumping” bill. What has happened to that innovative constitutional arrangement? It has gone because it could not stand the scrutiny. But it served Helen Clark’s needs for one election. When it really mattered it worked. Labour does not care about waka jumping now. It is the same with this bill. It is designed to serve one need which is to get Labour re-elected. Everyone else can be damned. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I rise without any of the noise and angst of some of the previous speakers and in my final months in this House also without the personalisation of attack which is something I will not miss when I leave this House. 
This is a very simple bill. The current legislative framework governing spending by parliamentary parties expires on 31 December this year. This bill extends that expiry date until 1 July 2009. Extending the current framework will ensure certainty and transparency for all parties. If the legislation lapses then we will return to the uncertain unclear situation that followed the report of the Controller and Auditor-General last year. This legislation relates to the legislative framework in which rules relating to parliamentary spending are set. The legislation does not set out all the rules of parliamentary spending. The details are set out in the determinations and directions issued by the Speaker. New determinations and directions were issued only last month. They received praise even from the Office of the Auditor-General. That is the clarity we are seeking as we move forward. 
The proximity of the election made it impossible to reach agreement among parties on an enduring legislative framework. That is sad. For that very reason it is essential that we extend the current interim framework until 2009 when the tempers will be down and people are able to work together. This will allow parties to work together outside the heat of an election campaign and come up with some enduring rules that we can all agree on. 
This legislation is about providing clear transparent and fair rules so that all MPs can do their job—which continues right up to the election—and nothing else. I have just heard Bill English get up and say that we do not need this legislation. Colin Espiner wrote: “The second thing to point out is that Labour has no choice but to bring the companion piece of legislation”—the bill we have in front of us—“before Parliament. That is because to allow it to lapse would basically mean that all political parties would once again be breaking the law in the way they use parliamentary funding.” 
Like my colleague Dianne Yates I have tried very hard to keep to those rules. In the 2005 election I used to run an advertisement in the local Rialto Cinema which stated my name and phone number and invited people to come to me to tackle Government departments and roads—and God knows what else. I rang Parliamentary Service and asked whether I could keep doing that. It said that of course I could because I was not asking for money or votes but was doing my services as an MP which I continued to do. I ran that advertisement right the way up to the election. I therefore support very strongly this legislation which allows us to continue doing our work. For somebody like me who is not seeking re-election but who wants to make his or her services available right to the bitter end in order to help constituents this bill makes the rules very clear. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call in support of the earlier speaker—my colleague who is soon to leave the House—Marian Hobbs on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. This bill will pass. This bill has been subject to a great deal of haranguing and misinformation. This bill is a very simple bill. All it does is ensure that established practices which unfortunately have not been allowed to proceed as a consequence of politicking from the other side of the House can continue under the cloak of legitimacy given by this House. It is disappointing that many of the points made in relation to this bill have become embroiled in debates and misunderstandings pertaining to electoral finance matters. Of course the Electoral Finance Bill which is soon to reach us will no doubt pass as well. 
A few things need to be pointed out in relation to this appropriation bill so that those New Zealanders who have not already been put to sleep by contributions from the other side of the House are possessed of the necessary facts. Firstly all parties in the House were consulted on this bill. Secondly all parties were prepared to work together in a genuine attempt to reach consensus. However it is very saddening—but accurate—to say that our friends in the National Party on the other side of the House decided to play a game of pettifogging and turn this into a petulant set of outbursts designed to score political points rather than to establish and continue a very well-tried system of funding the genuine activities of MPs. 
It needs to be pointed out that all legitimate contributions that were designed to get us over a point of consensus were tried. In early September this year the Government’s representatives were informed by the National Party’s negotiators that rather than supporting a substantive amendment the National Party would be prepared to support only an extension of the current rules. They also admitted that these rules were working well. Mr Brownlee—my fellow traveller to the United States—said also that National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period. So it remains to be said that the Opposition is purely opportunistic. That is to be expected in adversarial politics; however it is not a decision that has been arrived at by Dr Smith and others on the basis of some lofty political principle but rather on trivial miscalculated tactical point-scoring exercises in the House. That is to be expected. 
 It is important that we bear in mind that the larger debate looms in front of us as to what is to pass through this House as a reasonable attempt to ensure that money spent in the pursuit of electoral victory is premised on the principles of transparency and that people who do contribute are required to do so in such a way that they do not undermine the political process that we have every election as we saw in the last election. It is very difficult for the public actually to understand what is really happening in this short relatively inconsequential amendment represented in this bill which will pass. It is unfortunate that it has become embroiled in another set of issues. But members can rest assured; we look forward to that debate as well. 
This bill is regularising what both parties could have committed to had it not been for the main Opposition party seeing this as being a petty opportunity to score political points. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 The gentleman who spoke previously talked about a history lesson; I would like to speak to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill’s history by going back to 30 August 2005. There is a note of a telephone conversation that David Henry the then Chief Electoral Officer had with the New Zealand Labour Party general secretary Mike Smith where he raised with him the matter of a piece of propaganda that was being distributed to letterboxes nationwide. He asked whether it was being paid for by the Parliamentary Service and he made a note that he said whoever paid for this piece of propaganda did not matter and that it did not need to call specifically for a party vote. 
I then go on to a letter dated 2 September in which the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry referred Mike Smith the general secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party to that same piece of advertising. The section was quoted from the Electoral Act and the Labour Party was told that the advertising in the view of the Chief Electoral Officer did breach that section of the Electoral Act. He stated that in his view the statements made in the advertising encouraged or persuaded or appeared to encourage or persuade voters to vote for the Labour Party. The advertising was therefore subject to the provisions of section 221. At that stage in history anyone would ask whether the Labour Party stopped issuing electioneering propaganda and the answer is here in history in writing: no; in fact it did not. Quite to the contrary Labour put out another piece of electioneering that quite clearly breached that same section of the Electoral Act after Labour had had it in writing from the Chief Electoral Officer that that was the case. 
Finally in this correspondence we see the Labour Party accepting that it was breaking the law and saying that the party would pay for it out of its funds and declare it as part of its electioneering campaign. But we found out that after the election Labour members changed their minds and were happy to stand having broken the electoral law. 
That is the rort that has us on the path of this legislation in front of the House tonight because Labour members had to then blackguard the Auditor-General’s decisions and make their illegal behaviour legal. They did that by introducing validating legislation. They validated in retrospect the illegal activity they had knowingly taken part in despite being warned in writing by the Chief Electoral Officer. Most New Zealanders after having broken the law after having been told they had broken the law and after having been caught would change their behaviour. Most New Zealanders if they were warned that they would break the law if they continued their behaviour would change their behaviour but not this Government. This Government passes legislation to make its illegal activity legal. This was activity that those members were told in writing was illegal and for which by all that is right and just they should have been prosecuted for doing because that contributed to their stealing the election. 
Those members changed the law to make their behaviour legal but that legislation is due to run out at the end of this year 31 December. So we would have thought that Labour after having come down this road would now make every effort to reach a cross-party agreement. In fact around the table at the Parliamentary Service Commission back in May of this year the previous Minister of Justice started talking about this validation legislation running out at the end of the year. He talked about it in June of this year and again in July of this year. Did he do anything about it? No he did not. He just counted on the fact that the Labour Government would push through whatever it wanted when it wanted and in the way it wanted because it could buy the support of the minor parties and get the majority it needed in the House. The Government had done it before with the validating legislation so why would it not be able to do it again? And at the end of September the first discussions took place about the Government maybe having cross-party agreement. 
But by that stage Labour had introduced the Electoral Finance Bill which is Draconian legislation designed to shut down free speech in this country. But the National Party said that we had to look at both pieces of legislation together because they were both part of the same construction. They are both part of the same equation and we do have to look at them together. We were quite happy to discuss the two of them together but in order to do that we said that if Labour wanted to roll over that validating legislation for a couple of months then that was OK and we would support it but on the proviso that we were looking at the whole scenario—the two pieces of legislation going hand in hand. They are the facts that is the history and this is all quite clearly supported in writing. 
So here we are tonight discussing a bill that sets up one set of regulations for members of Parliament and for political parties in Parliament that have been bought by the generous finance in this bill before the House tonight in order to get votes and we are discussing another set of rules in the Electoral Finance Bill which will come before the House on Thursday for everyone else. That is why we are talking about corruption. This is a Government led by Labour designing law that suits it and nobody else. 
I will talk about a couple of pieces of propaganda I have here which were put out by Labour and which are quite OK this year. There is absolutely no problem with these pamphlets this year; the distribution time is not in the regulated period and under the old law would have been quite fine until 3 months before the election. No one could have queried that the distribution of these pamphlets did not fit the regulations. That is fine but this Government has said that it is OK for parliamentarians to put such pamphlets out in the regulated period next year. If I am an MP then I can put them out. But if I am a candidate then under the regulations being passed by this Labour Government doing that will be electioneering and it will have to count in my candidate’s $20000. That is not fair that is not right and that is not just. 
It is a very simple thing to understand. I suggest that those members opposite go away put aside their research notes read the bills and then try telling National members that they are wrong because members opposite will find that National members are not wrong; they are right. These pamphlets if put out by a Labour Party candidate in the regulated period next year will be counted as electioneering. But if they are put out by an MP they will not be so counted. MPs will be able to do that without any problem at all. If Labour members would listen and read the bill then they would understand that. 
 This bill in front of the House tonight is a travesty of democracy. This bill is appalling legislation. Its support has been bought by the minor parties for what is essentially State funding in drag. On behalf of the National Party I say that we will not support this legislation. It is appalling legislation and Labour members should hang their heads in shame. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time.