Ryall Tony: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13118] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 There are a small number of amendments in my name that I have been moved to put forward because I am concerned that the Government was taking closure motions on this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill after only two speeches from the Opposition. I tell the Government members that if they want to be voting on every date in 2008 and 2009 then Ms Moroney should go ahead and cut this debate short. She will prove what a great junior Labour whip she is when she has the Committee voting for 2½ hours on amendments. 
If this Opposition does not get the chance to have a say that is exactly what this Committee will be doing because we will not allow the rights of the minority in this Committee to be stampeded across by a party that in this bill will favour the red printing press such as we have never seen before. The amendments that I have for this Committee—[ 
Interruption 
] She is such a great junior Labour whip that it will be really well received in the Beehive when it is found out that because of her move to concertina two Opposition speakers on the bill we will all be a voting on amendments. 
I put forward these amendments because I do not think this bill should come into effect this year. I do not think it should come into effect until some time later so I have put forward amendments that will have this bill coming in at a later date because it will give a future Parliament the opportunity to deal with this sort of law in the way that it should. 
Like the Electoral Finance Bill these pieces of legislation should be dealt with on a multiparty basis of consensus across the House. We simply cannot have the law that applies to parliamentary spending and the election changing every election depending on who the winner is. That is the thing that has forced this House for generations to come together on rules that all the parties—certainly the main parties—can agree on. Parties realise that what goes around comes around and that what is done by the Government to the Opposition invites that Opposition when it becomes the Government to do to the Opposition what it is doing to the Opposition now. That is the reason why we have always had an approach of bipartisan agreement under the old system and multiparty agreement under the new system to the rules of election spending and the rules of election finance. 
That is why we have moved amendments to get this bill debated in a better culture where there can be multiparty agreement and all the parties come together. It is not good for democracy that the rules around parliamentary spending and elections change depending on who the victor in the election is. That is what happens in South America. That is what happens behind the Iron Curtain. That is what happens in corrupt banana republics. Whoever the winner is they change the electoral law to suit them and that is what is being proposed here. 
At the last election under the old rules it was illegal to spend money on materials like those I am holding—which are no doubt designed to promote as they do the Labour Party—in the period of the election and they had to be counted as election spending if they were produced. Under what is being proposed in this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill these brochures promoting the Labour Party and its candidates can go out in the days before the election and they will not be counted as election spending. 
This bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill provides immunity from coverage for parties and members of Parliament because of their work as members of Parliament. At the last election these materials I am holding and the credit card were found to be election expenses and costly and they had to be declared. But what has happened? This bill together with the Electoral Finance Bill says that all this bright red election material paid for by the taxpayers will become perfectly legitimate in the election campaign period. If these things go out now and they are within the rules they are not counted as election activity. They are counted as informational. 
Peter Brown 
: What do they say? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They say that Helen Clark is doing a great job and to vote for her. That is what they try to say. They say they are delivering more for families. 
Hon Bill English 
: What do they say about Trevor Mallard? More punch for your dollar. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. They say: “More punch for your dollar.” That is what he is saying in this material. This material going out now is not an election expense but it is during the election period.