Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13019] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The mock outrage from the National Opposition continues unabated today just as it did on Thursday. After listening to Tony Ryall’s speech just now one would not think he was a front-bench member of the 2002 Bill English leadership team which funded most of National’s election campaign that year off the back of Parliamentary Service funding because it could not get anybody to donate money to National while Bill English was the leader. One would not think that Tony Ryall was a member of the National Party leadership team then. If we listened to him speak just now we would not think he had ever heard of an organisation called the Exclusive Brethren Church which cosied up to the National Party during the last election campaign and was involved in a complicated routine of siphoning money to the National Party at electorate level right across the country peddling its mistruths about Labour and the Greens. If we listened to Tony Ryall just now we would not think he was a front-bench member of a party that failed to recognise the GST component of its advertising at the last election and therefore gained an unfair advantage in the amount of television and radio advertising it was entitled to at that election. 
So let us not get the moral outrage from the National Party. Let us debate the facts about what this bill tries to do for members of Parliament and for our parliamentary democracy. We have to try to engage in a rational attempt to get a proper definition around the issue of what the interim funding measure means. As the Leader of the House has already said to Parliament this afternoon we know that the National Party does not really oppose extending that definition. We know that basically for two reasons. The first is that Gerry Brownlee has already told us by mistake during question time about a week ago that the National Party wants to have a roll over of the interim definition of funding for parliamentary purposes. He confirmed that to us. The second reason we know that the National Party is in support of this bill and wants to see it passed is that National members keep spending the money they are allocated as members of Parliament to communicate to their constituents and to the country. 
If the National members really thought that spending Parliamentary Service money on communicating with the public was so morally reprehensible—as the outraged Mr Ryall has just shown us and as Mr English and Dr Smith showed us last week—they would stop spending it right now. If it is so terrible so Third World so corrupt and such a rort as Dr Smith keeps telling us as he calls out much to his colleagues’ embarrassment every question time they would not be spending the money. They would stop now. There would be no more advertising. The  
Southland Times 
 would not carry advertisements that tell people where to go to see Eric Roy MP at a constituency clinic because that would be so corrupt he would put his hand into his own pocket to pay for it himself and would not want to have Parliamentary Service money anywhere around him. But I bet that if I ask the Parliamentary Library for a copy of next week’s  
Southland Times 
 
there will be a beautiful smiling photo of Mr Roy with the parliamentary crest right by him. 
If the National members were so opposed to this measure they would stop publishing Mr Key’s “10 Budget Pledges”. Of course members can make a Budget pledge only if they think they will win an election and they can win an election only if they get votes. So we could argue that by putting those kinds of publications out members are trying solicit votes which is outside the rules that Labour and the other parties in Parliament are proposing in this debate. The National members certainly would not be sending out taxpayer-funded pamphlets that invite people to “Join the conversation with John Key.” which is very like what Hillary Clinton would do in that regard. 
We know that National is not opposing this legislation. We have seen that through Nick Smith’s own leaflet that he has put around the Nelson constituency promoting himself quite heavily. The most revealing part is probably the fact that with every single person whom Nick Smith helps—not being satisfied with the great joys of helping people as the local member of Parliament and of having that as the reward—Nick Smith obviously cannot wait for that person to go and write down how grateful he or she is to him so he can go and put it out in a pamphlet. That is an ironic kind of twist on public service. There are about 10 quotes in the pamphlet about how wonderful Nick Smith is then on the back there is the very interesting phrase “Why New Zealand needs a new Government.” I would have thought that that phrase is directly related to a general election and I would have thought that it directly tries to encourage people to cast their vote in a certain way in order to ensure that that could happen. 
Then there is the website address—www.nick4nelson.co.nz. What could “nick4nelson” mean? It presumably asks people to vote for Nick Smith to be their member of Parliament in that area. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I wonder what the  
New Zealand Herald  
thinks about that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I wonder what the  
New Zealand Herald  
would think if it received that pamphlet. I will be charitable and assume that Nelson is outside the catchment zone of the  
New Zealand Herald  
and that it has not seen this outrage. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It should have a front-page story on it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: A front-page story about Nick Smith? I think we will spare the country that I say to Mr Gosche although I am sure that the Hon Maryan Street will be working hard to draw Nick Smith’s failings to the attention of the public. But the thing that is revealing—there we have it—is the use of the House of Representatives crest on Nick Smith’s leaflet which he has put out in his electorate of Nelson and which is funded by the taxpayer. 
I wonder whether we will hear any National MP who is publicising himself or herself and who is explaining the work he or she is doing in a constituency get up in this debate and say he or she is outraged by the definition of what “communications” means. Parliament has operated under that definition for decades. I wonder whether any National MP is so outraged by that definition that he or she will not publish anything next year—election year—that is funded by the taxpayer if it is in terms of communications and that the MP will fund it all himself or herself or through his or her own fund-raising so strong is the member’s principle on this issue. I guarantee we will not hear a single speaker from the National Party side say that which is why we in the Labour Party and in other parties in Parliament believe that we are just seeing the National members playing very petty politics. 
If the National members were concerned about this issue then they would give us arguments about whether the extension was too long or too short. They would tell us what the reasonable rational opposition to the bill would be and what they propose in order to see a different interim definition come along out of this legislation. They would engage with us on the substance of it. But they want to talk about everything apart from the interim definition for parliamentary purposes of communicating with the public. They do not want to talk about that; they want to run the line that this funding will be used by parliamentary parties to pay for their electioneering material. That is not true. If any member on the opposite side of the House were to read clause 3 of this bill he or she would see that it specifically prohibits that taking place. When National MPs claim that the bill will provide for electioneering they are simply misleading the public. This bill continues the clear legislative prohibition on using parliamentary funds for electioneering. That legislative prohibition did not actually exist until Parliament passed a law on it last year. Who voted against it? National voted against it when it had the chance last year as well. 
Although the National members claim that this bill somehow changes the rules on what MPs can spend their resources on they know it does not. Until October last year it was the understanding of all MPs that we could communicate with our constituents on policy as long as we did not explicitly solicit votes. The evidence that that understanding was universal can be seen from Bill English’s 2002 pledge pamphlets and from John Key’s 2007 Budget pledges. When that understanding was thrown into confusion last year the House had to legislate in order to make it clear that the rules under which we had always worked would be the ones we would continue to follow. All that this bill does is to continue those clear rules for another 18 months. That is why National members want to avoid talking about the substance of the bill. They know they actually cannot oppose it. Their every activity every week in Parliament reinforces their need for this legislation. 
Another thing the National members want to talk about is the idea that this bill will somehow give an unfair advantage to MPs to be able to spend money on electioneering that other candidates will not be able to spend. That is untrue as well because the Electoral Act 1993 which was passed by a National Government—indeed I think Mr Ryall had a lot to with that at the time—provides quite clearly that any activity undertaken in a member’s capacity as a member of Parliament does not count towards election spending provided it does not solicit votes. 
Although National tries to avoid talking about the bill we are actually happy to talk about what it does. It provides clear rules under which MPs can carry out their obligations to communicate with their constituents. National MPs may not take that obligation very seriously but MPs from across many parties in this House do take it seriously. In fact it is one of the fundamental elements that have become lost in this debate. As MPs we are obliged to communicate with those whom we have been elected to represent. We are obliged to inform them of our views of the policy positions we are adopting and of the legislative issues we are grappling with. To fail to communicate with one’s constituents is to fail to serve as their representative. 
The bill is a simple one. It extends the expiry date of the interim meaning of funding for parliamentary purposes from 31 December this year to 30 June 2009. In doing so it provides clear transparent and fair rules so that all MPs can do their job—nothing else. That is why this bill deserves the consideration of the House. I hope the National Party can do so without the mock moral outrage we have been subjected to so far.