English Bill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13247] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a shame that this debate has come to such a level of deliberate ignorance. When I listen to the Government speakers they do not explain because they cannot bear to the context in which this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill arises. I want to make a couple of particular points about that. 
The first is that we do not need this bill. Parliament has wasted its time for weeks on this bill and its predecessor legislation. We have this bill before us only because of the petulance of Dr Cullen who can never be wrong. Dr Cullen and Helen Clark got caught out by the Auditor-General for breaking the rules. They broke all the rules particularly by breaching the electoral expense cap but the police could not be bothered to investigate—in fact they could not even find the right section of the Act to apply. Dr Cullen and Helen Clark got caught out and then they said: “Well the Auditor-General who caught us out is just trying to smear the Labour Party.” as if that is all he ever did. The Auditor-General they think wakes up in the morning thinking about one thing—the Labour Party. Actually he does not. He wakes up in the morning thinking about good and proper process and how to enforce the rules that he has laid out. 
That is why we have this bill because Labour said: “If the Auditor-General says we’re wrong he must be wrong. And if he says we’re wrong then everyone must be wrong and that is why we need validating legislation.” So they passed validating legislation to validate what we always knew were the rules which we had all kept—generally—except the Labour Party. This bill is just an extension of it. Helen Clark could not stand being wrong because she believes that the Labour Party is always right; that whenever it comes to anything to do with politics the centre of the world is the Labour Party. Our constitutional conventions mean nothing; our electoral law means nothing; and our Auditor-General is on some cheap political smear just because Labour got caught out. 
This bill is a waste of time. It is unnecessary; it is before the House because Michael Cullen and Helen Clark cannot be wrong. That is why National has opposed the bill. It is nothing to do with what is required to run fair and free elections. At least the Government has admitted that the bill just re-enacts the rules as we already had them. That is the first point. 
The second point is that the Labour Party cannot understand the significance for this legislation of changing the regulated period. The laws around electoral finance are always going to have to be a balance between politicians who are dead keen to get their message out the public who must have a role in influencing an election the careful use of public money—all these things have to be balanced alongside common-sense intuitions about the public’s interest in elections and when it really matters. For decades New Zealand has had a law that balanced those out with pretty minor changes supported by all the parties. The core of it was this: for a 3-month period before the election everything could be counted as an electoral expense including that which was spent by MPs. 
What effect did that have on MPs? Well we never quite knew when “3 months before the election” was but it did mean we had to be very careful to meet not only the parliamentary hurdle for the kind of material the member opposite is displaying but the hurdle put down by the Electoral Act. That was a tougher test. So things that we did in March or April we did not do in September or October because that was close to the election that was when the definition of “election expenses” counted and if we broke those rules we were in serious trouble. For 30 years—maybe longer I do not know—that has worked. 
What has changed now is that although the definition for what MPs can spend remains unchanged from what it was traditionally there is now no constraint from the Electoral Act on what MPs do. So we have the ridiculous situation that Tony Ryall pointed out where a document published by a Labour MP that sets out Labour’s policy will be legal during the regulated period—that is all next year—but the same document published by a Labour candidate will be illegal. That means one law for the candidate and one law for the politicians. That is what is at the heart of the dispute about this bill. Parliament is passing this definition of what MPs can spend money on and alongside the Electoral Finance Bill it means that the politicians will have more money fewer rules and more say but the general public will have a lot less money much tighter rules and much less say in the election. That is what is going to happen. 
The Labour Party of course wants one law for Labour and one rule for everybody else. Let us see just how different these definitions are so that people can understand how this whole collection of legislation—the Electoral Finance Bill and this appropriation bill—is all about Labour. Helen Clark cannot stand being wrong so she has fixed that. She is trying to pass this appropriation bill. It makes no practical difference to anything; it just proves that it was the Auditor-General who was wrong not Helen Clark. She did not like people criticising the pledge card so she is passing this bill to make the card legal; she has fixed that. She does not like the idea that people might raise money to attack the Labour Party so she is passing the Electoral Finance Bill; she has fixed that. She does not like the idea that MPs’ spending might be tested by the same law that every other citizen of New Zealand is subject to. She does not like that so she has fixed that. She has passed the legislation to make sure that MPs’ spending is subject just to our own rules—not to the rules that the rest of the country will have to adhere to. 
Let us look at these definitions so that people understand the legislation. The definition in the appropriation bill is the one we are used to for MPs. It is pretty clear and we all know what it is. We can put out almost anything as long as it does not seek support for the election of a particular person or party does not ask for money—we all know that; we cannot send out a parliamentary letter asking for a subscription to a party—and does not encourage someone to become a member. We cannot send out a membership recruitment letter on parliamentary money. That is how politicians see it. They see the rule as being that we can do almost everything except those things. 
The Electoral Finance Bill which is the rule for everybody else is absolutely different. It basically states that we cannot do anything much in case—can members feel the difference—it might encourage a voter to vote or not vote for a party or candidate. It also states—and this is the new bit which the Minister of Justice does not know about because she has not read the bill; what happened to the competent Minister of everything—that we cannot do anything that encourages a voter to vote for a party or a type of party that is indicated by views positions or policies. That is almost anything. I say to the Government that if it believes that that should be the rule for the public then it should put it in this bill. The Government should put it in the appropriation bill. Why did the Government not put in the appropriation bill that an MP cannot send out anything on public money if it will encourage a voter to vote by reference to views positions or policies? We know why. It is because that would rule out most of what MPs put out. That is why it is not there. 
Parliament will pass this legislation with a low level for MPs and real problems for the public. That shows us just how Labour thinks it is the centre of the world. During the last couple of elections it introduced the “waka jumping” bill. What has happened to that innovative constitutional arrangement? It has gone because it could not stand the scrutiny. But it served Helen Clark’s needs for one election. When it really mattered it worked. Labour does not care about waka jumping now. It is the same with this bill. It is designed to serve one need which is to get Labour re-elected. Everyone else can be damned.