Swain Paul: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13111] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was quite a poor and pathetic attempt at moral outrage. Some people in the National Party do moral outrage well. Maurice Williamson does moral outrage really really well. Bill English actually does it quite well. But the squeak from that member which was like being savaged by a wet bus ticket is a very very poor excuse for moral outrage and indignation. 
Let us have a look at what the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill actually does; after hearing that rant no one would be any the wiser. At the moment there is funding from the Parliamentary Service that members of Parliament can spend. It covers all sorts of things—for example the funding of members’ electorate offices. The issue we have at the moment is that the legislative framework around the way in which that money is allocated and spent expires shortly and unless we pass this legislation all of that money could be frozen. So we are extending that expiry date to June 2009 so that people can get together in Parliament and come up with some rules that everybody agrees on. The National Party originally thought that that was a good idea but now it has backed off and tried to bring together this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill when in fact they are quite separate. 
Mr Ryall said there is no restriction. Of course clause 3(2) defines what “electioneering” is: “ ‘electioneering’ means any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote … or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party … or (d) solicits subscriptions or other financial support.” To say that there are no restrictions around this is just absolute garbage which is why the member although he tried to wind himself up could not get himself to that point— because he knew he was not quoting what was in the legislation. 
Then he did moral outrage about the Labour Party’s spending. Well is not this interesting? I have a pamphlet here that was put out recently. It is from Nick Smith MP for Nelson. It is a survey and newsletter. It talks about why we need a new Government and what Nick is doing in Nelson. It asks people to give their views on National’s view on taxes. I wonder who paid for this pamphlet. I wonder whether it was paid for by the good Nelson National Party members from the proceeds of cake stalls and doily sales. I wonder whether the National Party funded it. “Oh no!” I hear; it did not fund it. The good hard-working National folk of Nelson did not fund it; it was the good old taxpayer—oh yes. It was I think just a month or so ago. 
What is the little secret that tells me that this pamphlet was probably funded by the taxpayer? Well it is called the parliamentary crest. That is one of the things that need to happen now. If we spend money on communications to our electorates we need the parliamentary crest printed on them. So I ask the National Party who paid for this pamphlet. Did the Parliamentary Service pay for this? 
Anne Tolley 
: Who cares? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: We have just had moral outrage from National Party members going on about the Labour Party putting out documents explaining policy but when it comes to National’s publications they ask “Who cares?”—“Who cares?” they say. Well members over there cannot criticise the Labour Party for putting out information to electorates then say there is nothing wrong with Nick Smith doing it. You see this is the problem—the inconsistency of the National Party. So the moral indignation falls flat. 
Well this pamphlet was paid for by the Parliamentary Service; it was paid for by the taxpayer. I say to the National Party in answer to the question it asked last week that this bill legitimises the spending that the National Party gets now from the Parliamentary Service. 
So if those members oppose this legislation today I ask whether they will make a commitment. Will the next person stand up and say that they are opposed to this bill that they will spend not one cent of the money from the Parliamentary Service and that they will not put out more pamphlets like that? Will they say that? Will they give that commitment now? Will the National Party if it votes against this legislation now agree never to put out anything like that pamphlet from now on? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: We play by the rules. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh I see; we cannot get a “No”. So they are going to vote against this legislation then carry on putting out leaflets like that one. There is a word for that Madam Chair and you know members know and I know—everybody here knows—that we are not allowed to say it. We are probably not allowed even to intimate what that word is. I do not think we are allowed even to say that it begins with “h”. But it certainly is a word that should not be accepted in this Chamber.