Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13131] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What is so disturbing about clause 3 is that it effectively gives the fingers to the independent office of the Auditor-General. Judith Tizard who has absolutely no respect for independent institutions who said at the last general election that she and her Labour Party cheated by using public money against the law for the use of— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What are you doing in your backyard right now? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What members have said—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely! And what is more for the 17 years that I have been a member of Parliament I have been able to put out a newsletter. What I have not done is try to rort the system. I will oppose— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You are rorting it now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is the Labour Party—[ 
Interruption 
] Can I say this to the member. Has the Auditor-General ever found that I have breached the rules? Never. Has the Auditor-General found that Judith Tizard breached the rules? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes so I say to Judith Tizard that she is a cheat and a disgrace. She and her political party are trying to force through legislation that attempts to override the Auditor-General. 
I ask Judith Tizard to read what the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the  
Dominion Post  
have said about her party. The  
Dominion Post  
said that the Labour Party has not worked out the difference between what is good for democracy and what is good for the Labour Party. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 said that this is a rort and that democracy is under attack from the likes of Trevor Mallard and this Labour Party which has no respect. 
I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair. Clause 3 of this bill defines electioneering. But somewhat strangely another bill before the House has a completely different definition of electioneering. My question for the Minister asks how he can justify there being one definition for politicians and a different definition for the normal members of the public out there. There is a common basic root value of one law for all yet in this bill there is one set of laws for politicians and another for outsiders. 
I challenge Peter Brown: how does he excuse a definition of electioneering in this bill that is completely at odds with the definition of electioneering in another bill? [ 
Interruption 
] Well Lesley Soper—can she explain— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lesley Soper. I thought the word “electioneering” would have a single definition and I ask members opposite how they can justify that sort of double standard. Will Lesley Soper explain why we have two different definitions for electioneering? There is only one reason: Lesley Soper Judith Tizard and their colleagues know that the people of New Zealand have lost faith in them and they know that the only way they can hang on to power with their fingernails is to cheat and to erode the democratic proper rules under which we have elections. And it is a total disgrace. 
I point out the way in which the effect of this law will overrule the settled law arising from the Reg Boorman case. We all remember the occasion when Reg Boorman cheated under another Labour Government and was thrown out of this Parliament for rorting the law. But this bill makes legal what Reg Boorman did. That is right. Reg Boorman was found guilty of committing a corrupt practice. And every Labour MP wants to change the law so that every one of them can commit a corrupt practice. But National says that that is wrong. You see the combination— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Contempt’s pretty wrong too. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That member thinks that stuffing around with democracy is something not to feel passionate about; I do feel passionate about it.