Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12941] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a first time. 
 Despite some of the breathless claims made by those opposite this is actually quite a simple bill. The legislative framework— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a rort. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —the member should know about those—under which parliamentary parties are currently spending money for parliamentary purposes expires on 31 December this year. This bill extends that expiry date until 30 June 2009. The question before the House is whether the current legislative framework should be extended or allowed to lapse. 
Extending the current framework will ensure certainty and transparency for all parties. If the legislation lapses then we will return to the unclear uncertain situation that followed the report of the Controller and Auditor-General of last year which of course covered only some parts of parliamentary spending and the implications for other parts have continued to remain entirely unclear—particularly those covering the employment of staff travel and other matters. It is also important to note that this legislation relates to the legislative framework in which the rules relating to parliamentary spending are set. The legislation itself does not set out all the rules. The detail of the rules is set out in the determinations and the directions issued by the Speaker under the Civil List Act and the Parliamentary Service Act. I note that the Speaker has recently overseen a substantial piece of work to improve and update the determinations and directions and that the new determinations and directions issued last month have been well received and have even received praise from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
The introduction of this bill marks the culmination of a long process of consultation and negotiation with all parties in the House. This includes consultation with the National Party. In fact the National Party was one of the first parties we engaged with in developing the legislative proposals. We believe that it is very important to try to reach agreement between the two largest parties as well as between the other parties in the House to try to achieve a stable long-term regime to replace the interim regime that lapses on 31 December 2007. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We wouldn’t let you cheat. We won’t agree to cheat. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: But I have never ever been found guilty of contempt of court unlike that member. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Auditor-General say? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Auditor-General said that he did not look at a large part of the National Party’s spending so he could not conclude whether it was inside or outside the rules. 
I hoped therefore to be able to bring to the House this year a piece of legislation that would substantially overhaul the legislative framework and address the range of concerns that exist. However that did not prove to be possible. Until quite recently it appeared that there would be support for legislation to put in place a new set of permanent rules. But in early September this year the Government’s representatives were informed by the National Party’s negotiators that rather than supporting a substantive amendment they would be prepared to support only an extension of the current rules. They have also admitted that these current rules were working well and had not caused difficulty to any party in the House. 
We were faced with two options: either to continue to develop substantive legislation in the knowledge that we might have sufficient support to enact it but with a slim majority or to agree with the proposal from the National Party to legislate to extend the current interim framework. 
Hon Bill English 
: What a load of rubbish. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I emphasise that that was the National Party’s proposal. The Government took the view that it was more appropriate to seek compromise and developed legislation that could be supported by a clear majority of the members of Parliament. We were then told by National that its members were not prepared to support what was in essence their proposal. Indeed Mr Brownlee indicated in this House on Tuesday that “National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period.” for the Electoral Finance Bill so that the National caucus could spend its vast treasure chest in the election period of say just 3 months. That is what it was all about. The truth is that National decided that the temptation to play politics was too strong and they admitted as much in front of the representatives of the other parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about fair electoral law rather than cheating in elections? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member who committed contempt of court hates any kind of referee in the place. He is the person who can least talk about those kinds of issues. Mr Brownlee can try to suggest that National— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just cheating on electoral law. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well how many people has that member cheated on in his life? Mr Brownlee can try to suggest— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that his interjections are just too much. He is doing constant barracking. I just ask him to desist. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Brownlee can try to suggest that National would have supported the extension with certain conditions but that is not the reality. National did not come back to the Government saying it would support an extension to a different date. It did not seek to negotiate; it simply rejected the proposal. Other parties luckily have been more interested in trying to achieve a sound and sensible position. 
This House will still have to come back to permanent long-term rules in 2009. The inability to resist the temptation to play politics by National also highlights the need to extend the framework to 2009. The closer we come to an election the less likely it is that common sense and good faith will allow parties to reach common ground on an issue of this sort. “Common sense” are words that I doubt Dr Smith can read let alone understand. Given the outcome this year we simply must extend the current rules for long enough to allow serious consideration to take place outside the heat of an election campaign. Being an appropriation bill of course the bill does not stand referred to a select committee but is simply set down after the first reading has passed for second reading. 
Despite the fact that National is complaining about this legislation in this bill it received the largest amount of Parliamentary Service funding of any party. It stands to gain the most from it. It will protest and pontificate and attempt to seize the high moral ground but will then happily spend the money to take on campaign staff on polling and on media management as it did in 2005—and the Auditor-General never investigated that aspect of the National Party’s spending in 2005. We know National is happy to spend the money because this flyer shows what the party is spending it on in the current year: Parliamentary Service spending by the National Party about what National’s policies are. Which bit of this does National not understand is a legitimate use of Parliamentary Service’s funding? This bill simply continues the rules under which this has been issued. National seems to be believe— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You passed the law! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The point about the high moral ground is that if one thinks something is wrong one does not do it. The National Party does not seem to understand that. 
The fact is that in 2005 that party spent money out of the Parliamentary Service vote on staff who were engaged in election activity. The National Party has never denied that fact and the Auditor-General never looked into that fact and indeed declined to look into that fact. National got away with it and now pretends to take the high moral ground. The high moral ground that National occupies is about as good as that which the Anglo-Saxons occupied in 1066 in that respect. The arrows are descending from the sky on to those members at the present time in that particular respect. The fact is that National will spend this money in 2008 and it is legitimate. 
National argues that politicians should spend election year not explaining what the policies of their parties are and that somehow or other politics stops during election year and politics is all right in any other year in the electoral cycle. Well that is stupid and we will now hear from Mr English all that fake rage he can summon up and all that enormous principle that he finds so convincing. But he needs to explain why this card I am holding went out this year to hundreds and thousands of households and was paid for out of the Parliamentary Service budget. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it’s lawful. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ah because it is lawful! Ha!