Tremain Chris: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5897] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. It was interesting to note that my colleague from across the floor Mr Fairbrother was having a crack at me about the current spending in my electorate. I go back to last year’s election campaign because the rules were made clear to me. As a new candidate coming into the election process I was told from day one that the rules changed 90 days out from the election. After that time one could not spend over $20000 at all. 
So what happened? I got into a seat that in 1999 had a Labour majority of 11800 votes. In 1999 the loyal member Mr Geoff Braybrooke had a majority of 11800 votes. Then what happened? Anne Tolley came along in 2002. Despite probably not the best performance from National over a period of time and a party vote of 20-odd percent Mr Fairbrother’s majority dropped from 11800 to 4500. I thought that at the 2005 election after his being in office for 3 years the result would be interesting. 
On the Thursday prior to the election Mr Fairbrother was asked in a radio interview whether he was confident of retaining the seat of Napier. He said: “Yes I am confident. I will retain it with the margin of 4500.” Anyway when it came around to Saturday what happened? 
Paula Bennett 
: What happened? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Well unfortunately he lost. The majority is now 3600 give or take a few. It would have to be one of the all-time excellent performances from a Labour candidate to go from an 11800 majority to a 3600 vote loss—a turn-round of 15400 votes inside 3 years. 
Let me tell members how fair it was going into the election. Did I have a painted office when I went into the election? No. Did I have three staff paid by the Parliamentary Service working for me? No. Did we have a parliamentary budget of $60000 at that point in time? No. Did I have the benefit of 3 years in office? Did we have the Deputy Prime Minister of the country living in our electorate? [ 
Interruption 
] We did yes. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But that’s not an advantage. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes. On top of that we now find out down the track that this party across the Chamber had an additional $14000 per electorate put into it to help it win the seat of Napier. That is a fact. 
I will tell members what happened a number of times out at the Eastern Institute of Technology campus. What were Labour’s people handing out by the hundreds? 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Pledge cards? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Well they were handing those out as well. It was red pens—as referred to in the Auditor-General’s report—with the Parliamentary Service logo written all over them. There were hundreds and hundreds of them and that is a fact. But it was not only that; there were also the newsletters put out in the electorate by Mr Barker and Mr Fairbrother. 
Electioneering is about being fair. I accept that there are rules leading into the last 90 days before the election. In the last 90 days before the election we were allowed to spend $20000 and we stuck clearly within those rules. Members opposite broke the rules and that came home to roost with a change in the seat of Napier. I remind Labour members because their colleague is keen to stand again at the next election and to front up and take me on that in 1999 their majority was 11800— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: To Labour? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: To Labour. In 2002 there was a majority of 4500 to Labour. In 2005 it was a loss to Labour of 3600—a turn-round of 15400. Do we know of anyone else in the history of the Labour Party who has been able to achieve that feat? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Imagine how well you would have done if they hadn’t cheated. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Exactly! Thank you.