Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13167] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak on clause 4 of this insidious bill the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I want to refer back to the Minister of Finance’s speech. I just want to point out to him before I start that if a member was elected in 1990 and we are now in the year 2007 that actually adds up to 17 years. It is a bit of a concern when even the Minister of Finance cannot add up. 
The essence of the debate around this insidious bill is that it creates separate rules for members of Parliament from those for the general public or for a candidate who is not a member of Parliament. My colleague Chris Tremain talked of his experiences as a candidate in the last election. I want to make it clear to the Committee when we look at this material here. We see that the red printing machine has been out in force. We have all this sort of material going out. That is not a problem. That is quite within the rules. It is happening outside an election year and it is all funded by the leader’s office. 
The material is talking about what the Government is doing—for example  
Supporting Kiwi Business 
;  
Healthy Wealthy and Wise 
; and  
Enhanced KiwiSaver: Investment for a Sustainable Future 
 etc. There is also a report by Trevor Mallard from Hutt South on anger management. That is not a problem. There is nothing wrong with that. Come election year—and under the new Electoral Finance Bill come 1 January next year—this material with the parliamentary crest on it will be OK if it is funded by the Labour leader’s office. A Labour member who is a candidate standing for Labour can also under this bill put out this sort of propaganda and it will be within the rules—not a problem. But a candidate standing against that Labour member putting out similar stuff with no parliamentary funding will have to count it in his or her election expenses. 
That is what is not right about this bill we are debating tonight. That is what is so insidious and invidious about what this Government is doing by setting up one set of rules for incumbents—for political parties in Government and in Parliament and for MPs who are currently holding seats—and discriminating against even its own party’s candidates in terms of what they are able to put out around the electorate. 
If an MP has a budget of $65000 if he or she is an electorate MP on top of that he or she will have another $20000 to spend as a candidate. It will be under a different set of rules so he or she will be managing two budgets with two different sets of criteria and two different sets of rules. That candidate will be up against another candidate out in the field with only $20000. That will be the case for a whole 12 months. 
This bill before the Committee tonight will extend those rules through into the middle of 2009. One has to ask what is so special about 30 June 2009 other than the fact that it is the end of a financial year for an MP. Why would we choose 30 June? Is it an arbitrary date? We do not know. Of course if there had been any sort of cross-party discussions of any meaning whatsoever around this legislation then we would understand. Other than a couple of meetings between chiefs of staff which did not begin until the end of September—they have not as the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister implied been happening all year—there was no cross-party discussion all year. There were two meetings—two discussions between chiefs of staff from the end of September. If there had been any sort of cross-party talk maybe we would understand what this expiry date of 30 June 2009 signifies. 
National does not believe that this legislation is needed at all. The rules are clear. Every other person in this country if he or she breaks the rules has to learn to change his or her behaviour. That person gets punished and he or she has to change his or her behaviour to abide by the law. The Labour Government broke the rules at the last election. It should have been punished more than by just having to hand back the money it had stolen from the taxpayer. Labour should have been prosecuted for breaching the electoral spending cap. It was ineptness on the part of the police that Labour was not punished. Labour should have had to change its behaviour not the rules.