Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13126] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I want to continue on from my colleague Tony Ryall because there is a more insidious thing about this bill that has not actually come out. All this material with red on it which I am holding here will be perfectly legal next year under this bill which sets up different rules for parliamentarians. If this information were put out by the Labour Party without the parliamentary crest it would be deemed to be electioneering under the Electoral Finance Bill and therefore it would not be allowed. That is what is so bad about this legislation in combination with the Electoral Finance Bill that is in the Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment. It sets up one regime for parliamentarians and this is an example of it. It will be no problem at all for parliamentarians to put out this sort of stuff next year with a parliamentary logo on it because it is not explicitly seeking a vote some money or some membership. That is what is in the bill that is in front of us tonight. 
The definition of electioneering in the bill is so tight that this material is OK but if New Zealand First or if the “Joe Brown Party” which is not in Parliament wanted to put out the same sort of material under their parties’ colours that would be called electioneering. Those parties would be told how much money they could spend or could not spend and they would be told when they could advertise. That is not democracy. That is a case of protecting the patches of current political parties and current MPs and that is despicable. I cannot believe that a principled party like New Zealand First is supporting this rubbish. It is absolutely undemocratic. I cannot believe that a man of the integrity of Peter Brown is sitting in the Chamber supporting this legislation right through its stages in the House. 
We have had some sophistry in this debate about the fact that this is one little bill that must be considered in isolation. That is wrong. We cannot consider this bill on its own. We have to look at it in concert with what is happening with the Electoral Finance Bill which is still in the select committee. If members look at that Electoral Finance Bill as it was introduced into this House they will see that it brings down Draconian curbs on the definition of electioneering that prescribes what everyone else can talk about. 
Let us look at the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Clause 3(2) states that 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 for a particular political party or political parties; or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party or political parties; or (d) solicits subscriptions …”. If members go to the Electoral Finance Bill as introduced into the House they will see that the definition of an election advertisement is quite different. A person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for one or more specified parties for one or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates. That person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies—blah-blah-blah. The third provision catches everything—any group from Greenpeace to a mothers federation that is taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated. 
That is an assault on democracy. I cannot believe that Peter Brown is supporting that and I cannot believe that his colleague Doug Woolerton is sitting in the select committee voting for the Government to bring in legislation that on the one hand says that an MP can spend what he or she likes and can produce all this sort of stuff— 
Peter Brown 
: It doesn’t say that. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It does say that. I say to Mr Brown that if he does not understand that then I suggest he go and read the bill carefully because that is what it says. It says those actions are OK for MPs but not for anyone else.