Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13022] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The Minister is not going to get mock moral outrage from me. The Minister does not want high moral outrage; he wants a rational debate although I did not see much evidence of his participating in that this afternoon. I will give him a rational debate this afternoon. I am going quietly to analyse the facts. This is not a debate about the Exclusive Brethren. It is not a debate about National’s award-winning billboards which we paid for by ourselves. It is all about Labour’s laying the foundations for another display of pledge card rorts in 2008. 
Let us recap; let us look at the history of the pledge card in 2005. It was a disgraceful episode in New Zealand’s democracy. Labour—knowing what the rules were and knowing what the spirit of the rules was—shamelessly ignored the rules prepared the pledge card with the airbrushed photo of the Prime Minister and distributed it throughout New Zealand. It did so at the expense of the taxpayer. The Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party. He wrote to the Labour Party and to Mike Smith its general secretary and told them about the risks of incurring that kind of expense. Mr Smith then wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer before the 2005 election—I think it was in early September—and made it quite clear that Labour would include the expenditure of the pledge card in its return of expenses. But then surprisingly after the election—like Paul on the road to Damascus—Mr Smith had some kind of sudden conversion. Essentially he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer withdrew his offer and told the Chief Electoral Officer to go to see a taxidermist. 
A complaint was made to the police which the police failed to investigate. The Auditor-General was then brought in on the act. He wrote a very comprehensive report that made it quite clear that that kind of expenditure was unauthorised and that in fact the Labour Party had overspent by $800000. Then last year there was rushed legislation to validate that spending to get this Government off the hook. Admittedly the Government paid back the $800000 but one thing it did not pay was interest. 
It is a great shame that the Supplementary Order Paper I put forward to the predecessor of this legislation last year did not pass. It is very interesting that if someone is pursued by the Inland Revenue Department for example for taxes that have not been paid on time then a miscreant will have to pay large sums of default interest. But this lousy Labour Party had to pay back only the principal because it ensured that there was no legislation to deal with the payment of interest. 
The Minister of Statistics wants a rational debate about the facts. Those are the facts that need to be addressed—that with this legislation we have a continuation of this disgraceful assault on New Zealand’s democracy. This is not the fruit of genuine cross-party arrangements. This Government does not know what genuine cross-party arrangements are. This Government consults only to the extent that it is necessary to secure its majority and then it steamrollers legislation through including legislation of a quasi-constitutional character like this legislation. The phrase “genuine cross-party negotiations” contains two key descriptors. First the consultation must be genuine not sham. Secondly there has to be proper cross-party negotiation. But we in the National Party find that this Government freezes us out of every kind of discussion as long as the Government has its majority. 
This bill is not the product of genuine cross-party negotiation. It is being steamrollered through by a Government that has cobbled together the smallest possible majority and it is being cobbled together to ensure that it is passed into law to allow a 2008 version of the pledge card to go ahead. This bill permits unlimited advertising by members of Parliament but what is worse than last election year it goes hand in hand with the Electoral Finance Bill which will impose huge constraints on the free speech of the public and will constrain what political parties can do in the context of a campaign. This is legislation that promotes incumbency that protects a Government and discriminates against Opposition parties and those who seek to become involved in the political process outside this place. It has to be seen in the context of the Electoral Finance Bill and to do otherwise is to turn a Nelsonian eye to reality. 
They are the facts. What I will do now is to look closely at the phrase “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” as Mr Hughes asked me to because the rules are not clear. The rules are very general and very elastic. It can be seen when one looks at clause 3(1)(a) for example which states that parliamentary funding may be used for “the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament:”. No one is denying that from time to time as Mr Hughes said a diligent member of Parliament will want to communicate with his or her constituents or with people within a district if it is a list MP over issues of the moment—for example to send out a survey to inquire about the response of the public to a particular issue of whatever kind. That is genuine communication and that is necessary communication if a member of Parliament is to do his or her job properly. But it is not necessary communication to publish a pledge card using the parliamentary crest. That is not a fundamental task necessary for the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament. That is stretching the rules that is driving a horse and buggy through the rules and it is unacceptable and inappropriate. 
The same thing applies when one looks at clause 3(1)(b): “the performance by a recognised party … of its roles and functions as a recognised party:”. People who are genuine and honest know what those rules are and will act according to them but the language that has been used is so vague and elastic that it allows other parties that perhaps do not like living according to the rules to get away with it. Members should look at clause 3(2) which is extremely unsatisfactory. It defines “electioneering” as “any communication that explicitly” does one or more of four things. But the phrase really should be “directly or indirectly” seeks for example support for the election of a particular person persons or party. The word “explicitly” enables members of Parliament who do not want to obey rules to avoid the rules and it enables parties that do not want to face up to their responsibilities to avoid the rules. So this legislation is wholly unsatisfactory. 
I would say in closing that this a particularly bad way to legislate because it seeks to extend the lifetime of legislation that is due to expire on 31 December 2007. I have a feeling we were told last year that there would be an opportunity this year to have a comprehensive review of the law but that has not happened. In the usual slapdash and rushed way we have another bill with a sunset clause seeking expiry on 30 June 2009. This is most unfortunate. National cannot and will not support this shabby legislation.