Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13162] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I too want to contribute to this Committee debate because the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is one of the worst rorts in writing electoral law that this Parliament has ever seen. It is the sign of an absolutely desperate Labour Party that will do anything and pull any sort of trick to try to win the next general election. 
I want to take Parliament back to the well-settled law around Reg Boorman. He was a Labour member of Parliament who used parliamentary resources to win the Wairarapa seat in 1987. The significance of that decision was that it set a very clear baseline which was that it did not matter how pamphlets or material were paid for if they appeared in the 3 months before an election and were electioneering they were included within the expenditure limit. What is being proposed in this bill and its associate bill the Electoral Finance Bill is to completely change that case law and to give sitting members of Parliament a huge advantage. The member in the chair Dr Cullen says— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just bring the member back to the bill please. We are talking about the expiry clause. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We are indeed talking about the expiry date of this bill. The issue is that we have had settled rules around the allocation of expenditure and the limits and around the way they operate in an election campaign. This bill seeks to override them. This bill overrides the Auditor-General. 
Peter Brown perfectly let the cat out of the bag last night. He said that this bill is about saving us and about protecting members of Parliament from the Auditor-General. That is what Peter Brown said. Members on this side of the Committee asked why we have to have a special bill to protect us from the Auditor-General but only until 30 June 2009. In other words the Government is saying: “Let’s just cheat for the next election because the polls aren’t looking too good. We know it’s unprincipled. We know it’s just a cash grab. We know it’s just about cheating.” But as the  
New Zealand Herald  
so accurately stated— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This member talks about cheating! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely! The Minister in the chair Dr Cullen has no respect for democratic principle and no respect for fair elections. He has become so intoxicated by power that he will do anything to hang on to his role including cheating on electoral laws. 
I say to the Minister in the chair that an unprincipled National Government could easily have introduced biased electoral laws with the huge reforms that involved the introduction of MMP. But National actually passed those huge electoral laws back in 1994 with an absolute consensus between National and Labour. Yes we could have been arrogant oafs and skewed the scrum; we did not because this party—the National Party— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Better pronunciation Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —is actually committed to some basic democratic principles I say to Shane Jones. 
I would like Mr Jones or Dr Cullen to explain how it is fair that under this bill we have a definition of electioneering that is completely different from that which applies to citizens under the Electoral Finance Bill. Why is it that if a private citizen wants to publish a pamphlet then it is deemed to be electioneering if it expresses any view on any subject on which any political party or candidate has a view? But when it comes to the exclusion of the use of public money and the definition of electioneering for politicians it is basically deemed to be electioneering only if the pamphlet states “Vote for me”. We all know of material that goes far wider than that. 
I know that Dr Cullen has got all excited in the House recently because I put out a newsletter in the last month. That newsletter talks about my work in Nelson and the hard work the National Party does in advocating views that are important to the people of Nelson. But what is peculiar to my situation I would say to Dr Cullen is that the newsletter has been in the same format for 18 or 19 years and I have never been found—unlike the Minister in the chair Dr Cullen— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Never been found. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —I have never been found by the Auditor-General to have breached the rules around the use. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court judge say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the members opposite take great pride in this. Is it not interesting? I stick up for a family—a mum and a dad who want to see their kids. Members opposite think it is funny that a mum and dad have not seen their children for 6 years.