Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13251] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 The gentleman who spoke previously talked about a history lesson; I would like to speak to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill’s history by going back to 30 August 2005. There is a note of a telephone conversation that David Henry the then Chief Electoral Officer had with the New Zealand Labour Party general secretary Mike Smith where he raised with him the matter of a piece of propaganda that was being distributed to letterboxes nationwide. He asked whether it was being paid for by the Parliamentary Service and he made a note that he said whoever paid for this piece of propaganda did not matter and that it did not need to call specifically for a party vote. 
I then go on to a letter dated 2 September in which the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry referred Mike Smith the general secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party to that same piece of advertising. The section was quoted from the Electoral Act and the Labour Party was told that the advertising in the view of the Chief Electoral Officer did breach that section of the Electoral Act. He stated that in his view the statements made in the advertising encouraged or persuaded or appeared to encourage or persuade voters to vote for the Labour Party. The advertising was therefore subject to the provisions of section 221. At that stage in history anyone would ask whether the Labour Party stopped issuing electioneering propaganda and the answer is here in history in writing: no; in fact it did not. Quite to the contrary Labour put out another piece of electioneering that quite clearly breached that same section of the Electoral Act after Labour had had it in writing from the Chief Electoral Officer that that was the case. 
Finally in this correspondence we see the Labour Party accepting that it was breaking the law and saying that the party would pay for it out of its funds and declare it as part of its electioneering campaign. But we found out that after the election Labour members changed their minds and were happy to stand having broken the electoral law. 
That is the rort that has us on the path of this legislation in front of the House tonight because Labour members had to then blackguard the Auditor-General’s decisions and make their illegal behaviour legal. They did that by introducing validating legislation. They validated in retrospect the illegal activity they had knowingly taken part in despite being warned in writing by the Chief Electoral Officer. Most New Zealanders after having broken the law after having been told they had broken the law and after having been caught would change their behaviour. Most New Zealanders if they were warned that they would break the law if they continued their behaviour would change their behaviour but not this Government. This Government passes legislation to make its illegal activity legal. This was activity that those members were told in writing was illegal and for which by all that is right and just they should have been prosecuted for doing because that contributed to their stealing the election. 
Those members changed the law to make their behaviour legal but that legislation is due to run out at the end of this year 31 December. So we would have thought that Labour after having come down this road would now make every effort to reach a cross-party agreement. In fact around the table at the Parliamentary Service Commission back in May of this year the previous Minister of Justice started talking about this validation legislation running out at the end of the year. He talked about it in June of this year and again in July of this year. Did he do anything about it? No he did not. He just counted on the fact that the Labour Government would push through whatever it wanted when it wanted and in the way it wanted because it could buy the support of the minor parties and get the majority it needed in the House. The Government had done it before with the validating legislation so why would it not be able to do it again? And at the end of September the first discussions took place about the Government maybe having cross-party agreement. 
But by that stage Labour had introduced the Electoral Finance Bill which is Draconian legislation designed to shut down free speech in this country. But the National Party said that we had to look at both pieces of legislation together because they were both part of the same construction. They are both part of the same equation and we do have to look at them together. We were quite happy to discuss the two of them together but in order to do that we said that if Labour wanted to roll over that validating legislation for a couple of months then that was OK and we would support it but on the proviso that we were looking at the whole scenario—the two pieces of legislation going hand in hand. They are the facts that is the history and this is all quite clearly supported in writing. 
So here we are tonight discussing a bill that sets up one set of regulations for members of Parliament and for political parties in Parliament that have been bought by the generous finance in this bill before the House tonight in order to get votes and we are discussing another set of rules in the Electoral Finance Bill which will come before the House on Thursday for everyone else. That is why we are talking about corruption. This is a Government led by Labour designing law that suits it and nobody else. 
I will talk about a couple of pieces of propaganda I have here which were put out by Labour and which are quite OK this year. There is absolutely no problem with these pamphlets this year; the distribution time is not in the regulated period and under the old law would have been quite fine until 3 months before the election. No one could have queried that the distribution of these pamphlets did not fit the regulations. That is fine but this Government has said that it is OK for parliamentarians to put such pamphlets out in the regulated period next year. If I am an MP then I can put them out. But if I am a candidate then under the regulations being passed by this Labour Government doing that will be electioneering and it will have to count in my candidate’s $20000. That is not fair that is not right and that is not just. 
It is a very simple thing to understand. I suggest that those members opposite go away put aside their research notes read the bills and then try telling National members that they are wrong because members opposite will find that National members are not wrong; they are right. These pamphlets if put out by a Labour Party candidate in the regulated period next year will be counted as electioneering. But if they are put out by an MP they will not be so counted. MPs will be able to do that without any problem at all. If Labour members would listen and read the bill then they would understand that. 
 This bill in front of the House tonight is a travesty of democracy. This bill is appalling legislation. Its support has been bought by the minor parties for what is essentially State funding in drag. On behalf of the National Party I say that we will not support this legislation. It is appalling legislation and Labour members should hang their heads in shame.