Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12947] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is all about Labour rorting our electoral laws. It gives the fingers to the Auditor-General. It is dirty slimy legislation that brings into gross disrepute this Parliament respect for the rule of law and the very democracy we have. 
Let me just recite the dirty history that lies behind this bill. At the last election Labour put out a pledge card in Helen Clark’s name—$800000 of public money was spent on it. That was despite the fact that the Auditor-General had given very clear warnings to all political parties 3 months prior to the election. When the Chief Electoral Officer raised the issue of the pledge card with Labour Party headquarters headquarters staff said it would be declared within Labour’s spending cap 3 days before the election. But then 3 days after the election they said it was not electioneering. We even had the gall of the Prime Minister telling the police that this pledge card was not electioneering. No New Zealander believes that. What sort of example is our Prime Minister giving running those sorts of fibs past the New Zealand Police? 
When the Auditor-General bravely reported in 2006 that that pledge card was illegal Labour passed retrospective law to make it legal again. That was an appalling precedent. The signal that Labour has given is to cheat on the electoral laws do whatever it takes to win an election then pass a law afterwards to retrospectively make it right. That is appalling. Labour breached the law in two respects: firstly with the illegal use of taxpayers’ money; and secondly by not including it within its declaration of expenses. Yet what Labour is doing—firstly with this bill; and secondly with the Electoral Finance Bill—is making those two illegal acts lawful in the future. 
The real exposure of the gall of this bill is the different definitions. I want to read them to the House so that Parliament sees the contradiction. In respect of this bill electoral advertising when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money is defined very very narrowly. We members can spend the money on any advertising we like providing we do not use the words “vote National” or “vote Labour” and providing we do not solicit party members or party funds. Anything beyond those limits is not considered electoral advertising in this bill. 
Those are the rules for us; let us look at the rules and definition of electoral advertising for the public. For the public any form of words or graphics that encourage or persuade voters to vote and any taking of a position on a proposition that any one party or candidate might have is constituted as electoral advertising. I have a simple question for members opposite: when it comes to electoral advertising in this bill why is it that we have to use the words “vote” or “become a member” or “give us some money” but when it comes to the public the definition of electoral advertising is anything that comments on any issue of which any political party or candidate might have a view? It is nothing less than a total rort. 
I want to go back though a little bit further in history. What has governed electoral law and elections are the key decisions made in 1988 in the Reg Boorman case. In 1988 Reg Boorman was thrown out of this Parliament for breaking the rules of the Electoral Act. The key thing Reg Boorman did was use parliamentary money to secure his re-election in the Wairarapa. The judge made some key decisions that have affected the interpretation of the law since. In trying to work out what was electioneering when MPs went about their normal course of work he set some pretty common-sense rules. He said that if for instance MPs had advertised their services as constituency MPs every single week then they were quite entitled to do that every week during the election period. If they sent out 300 or 400 letters each month to constituents during the normal course of their work during the 3 years of their terms then it was fine to do so also in the election period. 
But this bill reverses that Reg Boorman law. Firstly this bill states that MPs can spend money on any advertising they like providing it does not say “vote”. Equally the Electoral Finance Bill states that any of that budget that is spent is not to be included within the cap which is what ultimately cost Reg Boorman his seat. Let us be quite plain. If Reg Boorman had managed his election campaign under these rules nothing would be wrong. We are overturning that law. 
Let us flow through and see how that affects things. You see under the law any person who wants to stand for Parliament is limited to spending $20000. That $20000 figure—the $20000 that is to be spent in the 3 months prior to the election—has not changed for 12 years. If one goes to any electoral manual as every contesting politician in this Parliament would know one would see that candidates need to spend at least $1 per voter just to get their names known. It is a dollar per voter just for that voter to know a candidate’s name. Our electorates have 55000 people in them. That is $55000. So we are to say to any members of the public who want to stand for Parliament that they can spend only $20000 not just within the 3 months prior to the election but in all of the election year. Then with this bill members are saying that they will give themselves $65000 that they will change the law and that they will exclude that amount from being included in their spending limits. 
Let us be honest about another cute little feature: members are bulk funded. They can spend that money anytime they like. Any member of this House can save up all his or her $65000 and spend it in this financial year which ends on 30 June and on 1 July next year that member will get another big chunk of money—$35000. So technically speaking members are writing in this law that they as members of Parliament will be able to spend $100000 of public money on advertising and promoting themselves in their electorates; they will be able to get another $20000 which is declared; and any person wanting to contest their seats can spend only $20000. That is a 6:1 ratio. I would ask whether any member here really believes that is fair. Labour is setting up Parliament as a closed shop. If members apply these laws long term every constituency member of this Parliament is effectively guaranteeing that nobody will be able to contest his or her seat fairly because of the consecutive rorts that Labour is setting up with this bill. 
I say that this bill is a disgrace. It is a cynical perversion of our electoral laws. The risk I say to my fellow parliamentarians is that this place makes itself irrelevant if it does not have a fair mandate from the communities that members seek to represent. All the criticisms I have made of the unfair contest that this bill sets up in electorates—in stating that electorate MPs effectively can spend $120000 with $100000 of that as public money securing their re-election but anybody else can spend only $20000—are pointing out that the bill is really taking away the democratic accountability that should go with this electoral process and with electoral law. 
I say that this is an absolute disgrace. This bill is about only one objective. It is about Labour members trying to secure their seats and their position in the Government at any price. Their recipe is to dig deep into the taxpayers’ pockets by increasing the budgets for MPs and parties and to change the rules so that members can spend money on anything they like overruling what the Auditor-General said was fair and about what could be spent.