Swain Paul: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13236] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was a tired old retread from the National Party called Tony Ryall. He had the temerity to talk about people who have been here a long time and are old in face. There is such a thing called a mirror that I might give him for Christmas which is not too far away. The debate gets more and more curious the more we listen to the National members on the other side of the Chamber. The problem of course is that they have completely misread and misrepresented the bill. This is a very very simple little bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Simple rort; it’s a rort. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will come on to the rort from the member called Nick Smith. We are going to talk about him in a minute. I want to set the framework here because it is really important and people at home might not have understood what this bill is about after hearing from that tired old retread Tony Ryall who spoke previously. The point is that at the moment there is a framework for spending Government money if one is a member of Parliament. It is very very simple and all members of Parliament do it. They have electorate offices public advertising in their local newspapers they put out information and there are rules around that. Basically the rules say that we are not allowed to electioneer with it which means we are not allowed to elicit a vote we are not allowed to say “vote for Labour” “vote for me” or “vote for the party”. They also say that we are not allowed to collect money or ask for money. All of these things are called electioneering. Do members know what? That appears in this legislation that we are debating. It states that we are not allowed to do those things. 
So what this legislation does is say that we tried to get some agreement on some rules about what should be spent. In fact the National Party said “Yes we’re in.” then it said “No we’re not.” We said: “Well let’s roll these rules over.” They said: “Oh yeah. We’ll do that.” Then “Oh no we won’t.” they said. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where’s Gerry? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes Gerry Brownlee said that. So the problem we have now is that the framework expires at the end of this year. What we are doing is just simply rolling it over until 2009 until we can get some new rules in place. So the framework does not change and electioneering is not allowed. National members now are outraged by this legislation. They are appalled by it. They are outraged and appalled by this legislation because it allows members of Parliament to spend taxpayers’ money. 
There is a question I have not been able to get an answer to yet from anybody and I am going to start firstly with Nathan Guy. Does Nathan Guy support this legislation or not? We get no answer when we ask these direct questions. I assume by the outrage and appalling behaviour that those members have displayed over there that somehow they are going to vote against this legislation. So the next question is if they are going to vote against this legislation does it mean that Nathan Guy once this legislation is passed will not put out anything like this pamphlet I am holding into the letterboxes of people in the Otaki area? He says in the pamphlet “What you think does matter”. He goes on to say “Keeping in touch is important.” There is a bit of a questionnaire about all sorts of things on the back of the pamphlet. One of the other things he says here which is really nice of him is “To save costs I’m generally sending one form per household.” notwithstanding the fact that this is enormously expensive. But what this legislation does is it allows people to do this. 
I say to Nathan Guy that if he votes against this legislation he needs to stand up in this Parliament and say “As a result of my vote in Parliament I am not going to spend one single cent of taxpayers’ money next year putting out stuff like this.” If he is going to be consistent he should say “Yes I am. I am not going to put out anything next year. I am so outraged by what the Government is doing in this legislation that I have voted against it.” I do not think that will happen. I do not think he will stand up and say “I oppose this legislation and I’m not going to put out anything next year that is funded by the taxpayer.” I bet he does not do that. 
Strangely enough there is a member of Parliament up north called Anne Tolley. When I pick up this pamphlet that she has put out which starts with “What you think does matter” I wonder where I have read that before. I go back to Nathan Guy’s pamphlet which reads “What you think does matter”. Methinks that these two pamphlets are the same. I turn them over and they are. The only difference is that the names are different. I notice down the bottom of the pamphlet it says “Privacy notice. Supplying this information is voluntary. The information is being collected by Nathan Guy in his capacity as a member of Parliament”—which is what this bill does; it says that if one is a member of Parliament one is allowed to do this kind of thing—“and will be used for related activities.” I wonder what they are. It sounds sniffingly like— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Feedback. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It sounds like a little feedback and “maybe we might send you a little pamphlet about what National is going to do”. We know what that means. Nathan Guy and Anne Tolley are outraged by this legislation. They are going to vote against it but will not say whether they will do this next year when according to them this is an outrage. 
Of course there is Nick Smith who always has a lot to say about this kind of matter. Here we have a little pamphlet from him that says “Why New Zealand needs a new Government”. Of course the fact of the matter is that New Zealand has a fabulous one at the moment which is why this is probably false advertising. But the fact of the matter is that Nick Smith is going to vote I presume against this legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You bet. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he is. He is going to vote against it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A principled man. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: He is a principled man. He is going to vote against it. I ask Nick Smith then once this legislation is passed next year is he going to put out information similar to this? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the member yield? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I am asking the member a question. Will the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the member’s question. There is a simple procedure in Parliament’s rules and it is for the member to yield. I am happy for the member to yield to answer his question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not going to do that. I know what the rules are. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK. That is fine. The member is not prepared to yield. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The point is that the member will not answer the question. It is just a simple thing. He can just call out across the House yes or no. He will not do that. He will not answer because he knows that next year he is going to put out information like this in his electorate. So I ask the member Nick Smith if he is going to put out information like that why he is voting against this legislation that allows it. 
Hon Member 
: There’s a word for that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well there is a word but we are not allowed to mention that word Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Absolutely. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is exactly right because I know what the rules are. But the fact of the matter is that a word in the dictionary describes what Mr Nick Smith is doing. He now has said of course that he will vote against this bill but we know that next year against all the principled outrage and moral indignation that we will probably hear from him in a minute he will do exactly what the bill does; that is a strange thing. So I ask Nick Smith again. 
I have here an article about John Key’s “Join the conversation” cards. So I ask National members who are outraged by this legislation and who presumably are going to vote against this legislation whether we will see John Key putting out any information funded by the taxpayer next year—yes or no? Well is that not interesting? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is National’s deputy leader. He should know. You know I will hazard a guess; I will take a punt that the National Party will vote against this legislation and then—surprise surprise—will use taxpayers’ money which the legislation allows them to do to put out information like this and information as on this brochure: “My commitment” from former leader Bill English. 
Here is another one: “Ten steps National’s first Budget will take”. The leaflet is funded by the National Party. How do we know—because it has the little parliamentary crest on it. This leaflet is funded by the National Party. All we want is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: By the taxpayer. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is funded by the taxpayer. All we want is a simple question answered. If the National Party is so appalled by this legislation—which will have the support of the majority of the parties in the House—and it has a right to be and if it is going to vote against this legislation which it has a right to do does that mean therefore that it will not spend one single solitary cent of taxpayers’ money next year? The question simply is yes or no. All I want is one National member to tell me yes or no. Of course they will not say yes or no because we know that the answer is yes. So the public of New Zealand need to know that National is voting against the legislation but will spend the money this legislation allows. And there is a word for it that we are not allowed to mention in Parliament.