Wilkinson Kate: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13134] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I will start my call by quoting from the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.” [ 
Interruption 
] Democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to do this to my colleague but is it appropriate for the Minister in the chair Mr Mallard with a microphone to be barracking a member who is on her feet? I do not believe that is in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Except on rare occasions the Minister is not meant to take part in the debate at all. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s supposed to be at his anger management course. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Any comments like that may be one of those rare occasions. We will start again with Kate Wilkinson. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will repeat what the  
New Zealand Herald  
said because I think it said it well on Monday— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why don’t you think for yourself? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is worth having it recorded in  
Hansard 
 I say to Mr Fairbrother because I think it is important to the democracy of our country. It is important that people have confidence in the democracy of our country and in our Parliament and I think that the people of New Zealand are very rapidly losing that confidence. The  
New Zealand Herald  
states: “Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I suggest the member just tables the document rather than read it all out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order Minister. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I say to the Minister that if I want him to write my speeches I will ask him to do so but he should not hold his breath. 
“Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage—a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election. The Clark Government’s refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information. Now having grudgingly repaid the public purse they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again … The interests of any healthy democracy lie in its unrestricted debate not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech. If these bills pass they will be Labour’s epitaph.” 
That is what the  
New Zealand Herald  
said on Monday and it is worth recording in  
Hansard 
 because this attempt is a disgrace. This is not democracy. This is not the Parliament that our people have elected us to represent them at and to be part of. This is not a Parliament that the people of New Zealand can have confidence in. 
We have in this clause 3 an exclusion relating to electioneering. It excludes communications that explicitly seek support for the election of a particular person or explicitly seek support for the casting of a party vote or explicitly encourage a person to become a member of a political party or explicitly solicit subscriptions or other financial support. This brochure I am holding does not say in effect “parliamentary advertising needs to say to vote for party X join party X or give money to party X” before it would be considered electioneering. This brochure  
Healthy Wealthy and Wise 
 does not say that. That is paid for by the taxpayer. This one  
Trevor Mallard MP for Hutt South Reports 
 is paid for by the taxpayer. I do not know what this next brochure says but it is paid for by the taxpayer. It is blatant; it is paid for by the taxpayer. Here is another brochure which is also paid for by the taxpayer as is this one. This is one rule for MPs and another rule for the public and that is abhorrent—one rule for MPs and another rule for the public. 
Again because I want it recorded in  
Hansard 
 I quote from what the  
Listener 
 says. It says it better than I can say it. If members want to know why I want to quote it it is because the  
Listener 
 uses the words better. But I want it in  
Hansard 
. I think it needs to be recorded there. The  
Listener 
 states: “It seems that Labour and its support parties … have found a way to legitimise election-period spending through their taxpayer-funded parliamentary budgets. Add such spending to the expensive ad campaigns to allegedly educate the public on policies like KiwiSaver or Working for Families and next year Labour in particular will be bleeding a lucrative vein of taxpayer-funded publicity. The public has been told that the ‘One Law for MPs Bill’ is only temporary. But so what?” the  
Listener  
says. “The period it covers is the only time that counts—right through election year. And there is nothing to stop the next government simply renewing it—temporarily of course. The public deserve better. Not only because the public are paying for it but because it is unfair for incumbent MPs to have a legalised advantage and because in election year there should be a level of robust participation that the Electoral Finance Bill will inhibit. The bill’s provisions are a shame and a shambles and New Zealand’s democracy will be poorer if they are passed.” 
That is what the  
Listener 
 said. I fear for our democracy when we have laws that are as shameful as invidious and as disgraceful as this one and I fear that confidence in our Parliament and in our democracy is being eroded and that it will take a long long time to recover. This is a disgrace.