Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12945] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Nobody does fake outrage better than Bill English Tony Ryall and Nick Smith. It is no wonder that we have just had a contribution from the deputy leader of the National Party and that we are shortly to hear from Dr Nick Smith the former deputy leader of the National Party. When Bill English campaigned around New Zealand under his slogan of “one standard of citizenship” in the 2002 campaign who had to pay for the majority of National’s campaign when the corporate donors the big boys who normally support them walked away because his leadership was so hopeless? The Parliamentary Service Commission funded most of National’s campaign that year and National members know it. Bill English did not refer to that at all because when it suited him he was quite happy with that. 
When the foreshore and seabed debate was on when Bill English was still the National leader he was quite happy to have billboards around New Zealand saying “No deals” with his photo a photo of the beach and a big crest of the House of Representatives as he struggled and tried to save his failing leadership campaign against Dr Don Brash. So in a general election campaign Bill English has been prepared to use Parliamentary Service money on a campaign against Don Brash to try to keep his job as leader. [ 
Interruption 
] He says “absolutely”. When the Exclusive Brethren church turned up and said it would secretly funnel National some money to try to help its campaign in 2005 all of sudden high moral principle came up but as Moana Mackey says National did not even attribute that money. 
Bill English was saying in the debate this afternoon that there should be transparency in all of this and that it should be upfront and above board. Mr English should tell us why National did not include the Exclusive Brethren contribution to its campaign in 2005. The reason is that that contribution would have put National over the top. That is exactly the reason that National did not include it so there is no credibility in terms of the outrage. 
We have to deal with what is practical in terms of this bill. As the Leader of the House said despite all the hype and the hot air the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is actually very simple. What I want to do this afternoon is dispel some of the myths that have been pedalled about by members opposite. The first is around electioneering. This bill will not allow parties to use parliamentary funding to pay for electioneering material. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: We know about that member and consistency. Nick Smith cannot put out a pamphlet that says “Tick Nick” and have that funded by Parliamentary Service. That will not be allowed to happen; this bill does not allow it to happen. If the member does not know that then he shows that he has not read the bill before making a contribution. 
Clause 3 makes it quite clear that funding cannot be used for communication services that include electioneering. Those who try to claim that this bill will provide for electioneering are trying to deliberately mislead the public in that regard. This bill continues the clear legislative prohibition on using parliamentary funds for the purposes of electioneering. This clear prohibition did not exist—and this is an important point—until it was legislated for by the majority of Parliament last year. So it provides for clear and transparent rules by which all parties have to abide. 
The second myth that needs to be dispelled is that this bill is part of some grand plan—as we heard from Mr English—to allow MPs to spend money when others cannot. This bill does not allow MPs to spend money on campaigning for votes when others cannot. It provides rules under which MPs can carry out their obligations to their constituents and to communicate with them. Perhaps that is an obligation that the National Party is not taking seriously but the parties that support this bill do take that seriously and that is why Mr Brownlee is not correct when he continues to pedal the line we have heard from him—that the Electoral Finance Bill has changed rules around accounting for MPs’ election expenses. It is not correct and he does not know what is in the current Electoral Act. 
The Electoral Act was passed in 1993 when the speaker we have just heard from and the one to come next were National Government members. That Act provides quite clearly that activity undertaken in a member’s capacity as a member of Parliament does not count towards election spending providing it does not seek to solicit votes. Nothing in the Electoral Finance Bill or indeed in this bill changes that. But what the National Party seems to be suggesting is that MPs should be prevented from communicating with their constituents. That is something that the majority of parties in this House simply cannot support. 
The other myth that needs dispelling is that this bill has somehow been rushed through the House. This bill is following the normal legislative process for a bill of this type. This bill relates to appropriations and as such it has to meet a test for such bills otherwise it would not have been permitted on to the Order Paper in this form. It will proceed through the normal deliberative process for appropriation bills. It is the National Party that seems determined to play games with the proper legislative process on this bill. I would be shocked if the shadow Leader of the House really believed his mock outrage about this. He has been in this House long enough to understand the legislative process but I am worried that some of his backbench colleagues might actually believe Gerry Brownlee’s crocodile tears in this regard. There are no short cuts with this bill. It is not being rushed through under urgency and we are not bypassing scrutiny. We are following the normal legislative process. 
Another myth that Mr Brownlee has insisted on propagating is the idea that this bill somehow allows the Labour Party to use Government departments and their funding to promote the interests of the Labour Party. Again this is simply not true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It does. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The fact that Nick Smith says it does reinforces the point that it is simply not true. This bill relates to spending for parliamentary purposes for which we gave a legislative definition last year that Dr Nick Smith voted against. Mr Brownlee seeks to confuse two quite separate issues and we heard him doing it again on the radio on Tuesday. Nothing in this bill relates to spending by the Government of New Zealand; it relates only to spending by parliamentary parties. And let us be clear: the party that will benefit the most from funding for parliamentary parties is the National Party. It received the largest slice of taxpayers’ money for parliamentary party purposes. 
Finally I would like to mention the whole range of myths— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about ministerial budgets? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: One cannot solicit votes from ministerial budgets either. The member has been here for 17 years! The bill we are discussing at the moment is not about the electoral finance regime. The bill is not about Labour’s pledge cards from the last election or indeed National’s pledge pamphlets which it put about at the last election as well. The bill is not about whether money that has already been repaid should have been. That matter is settled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did you repay it? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Here is Mr English saying it is terrible that the Labour Party repaid some money. The National Party had to repay money as well. For Mr English the principle is the size of the amount that had to be paid back not whether the Auditor-General found a technical breach and ruled that money had to be paid back. That finding has been honoured by the parties concerned. 
This bill is certainly not about whether Mr English pushed the boundaries of the rules in 2002 when he was the leader of his party. That is something he is very keen to extinguish from memory today. To be fair I would say I would probably want to do the same if I were in his situation but the point is that his false outrage is a little bit hard to swallow in that regard. 
This bill is actually quite a simple bill. It is about whether the current legislative framework under which we are operating right now should be extended through to June 2009. I wish we were actually debating a substantial rewrite of the rules that would provide an enduring legislative framework but unfortunately we are so close to a general election that it has been impossible to reach agreement among parties on such a framework. For that very reason it is essential that we extend this current interim framework until 2009. The Government’s hope is that that will allow parties to work together outside of the heat of an election campaign and come up with some enduring rules that we can all agree on and importantly abide by. 
 In commending the bill to the House I also acknowledge the support for this measure that has come from across the Chamber. It is not often that Labour and ACT agree on an issue let alone Labour ACT the Greens New Zealand First and United Future. But I think that shows that this is not an example of Labour trying to foist something on the House. This bill has grown out of a genuine consultation between parties across the House and is an example of the benefit of parties working together in good faith. It is a shame that the National Party could not bring itself to see this process through. I commend the bill to the House.