English Bill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13121] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 My colleague tells me that Labour is 23 percent behind in the East Coast electorate. I would advise the Labour candidate to stay away from that electorate because a Labour Party candidate wandering around the East Coast having to answer questions about the use of taxpayers’ money in the last election will be getting no votes whatsoever. 
We need to remind the Committee of just why we are here. This bill does not need a commencement date because Parliament does not need this legislation. The only reason it is here is that Labour broke the rules in the 2005 election after it had been told by the Auditor-General what the rules were. 
Before the election the Auditor-General said: “Remember there is a 3-month period and in that period of time the rules are tight and you should be very careful.” During the 3-month period after the Auditor-General had told the Labour Party—and everybody—to be careful Labour was told the same thing by the Chief Electoral Officer during the election period. In fact it was only about a month out from the election. The Labour Party wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer and said: “Yes the pledge card is electioneering.” Labour members agreed and they said they would count it in their expenses. That was not the National Party rabble opposition and it was not the nasty smearing Auditor-General; it was the secretary of the Labour Party. That is who it was. I do not think the Labour MPs knew that. Labour put down on paper that yes it accepted that the pledge card was electioneering. By definition that means that Labour accepted that it broke the rules. The public knows Labour broke the rules because it paid back the money. Have members ever seen Helen Clark admit she is wrong about anything? No except for the pledge card when Labour paid back the money. 
But of course as the member said Labour still does not accept that it can do anything wrong. Once Labour had paid back the money it then wanted to cover it up by saying that everyone broke the rules and that the Auditor-General is so silly that it has to pass legislation to validate MPs paying for the lighting in their office and putting ads in the paper for constituent clinics. That is why Labour passed this law. It said that if it got caught out the Auditor-General must be stupid and the rules must be wrong so we have to validate everything that MPs have ever done. That is the sort of standard of morality that Labour has set. Labour members believe they are the only people who can validate everything that MPs have ever done. 
That is the legislation that expires on 30 December which is why this bill is here with a 1 January commencement date. It should not have a commencement date. The bill is here only because Dr Cullen was piqued that he got caught out. He was angry and frustrated so he made Parliament pass a law to prove that Labour was right. That is what this bill is all about—to try to prove that Labour was right. 
We do not need the bill. As the previous speaker said the rules have not changed since before 1993—in fact since about 1989. The rules are the same. The only thing that ever happened was that Labour broke them. Egregiously and deliberately Labour exceeded the expenditure limit for the election by $600000 or $700000. It has never been done before. The way to make sure that rules count is to enforce them. Unfortunately after the last election the rules were not enforced when they should have been enforced—on everyone. Other parties broke the rules to a minor extent. The rules should have been enforced. That is what this bill is here for. 
I invite the member for the East Coast to wander round the countryside looking for voters for Labour and to tell them that Labour is passing legislation that means that MPs can spend what they like right up to election day but the candidate who is running against her cannot. 
The member for the Tainui Maori seat is over there. The Maori Party candidate standing against her will be limited to $20000 for election year but Nanaia Mahuta will have the ability to spend about $80000—all of it public money. The Maori Party candidate will have to go and raise the $20000 with cake stalls and raffle tickets. Nanaia Mahuta will get $80000 handed to her. That is Labour’s definition of a fair go. In fact Labour thinks that money given to someone is better if it is public money.