Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13128] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 If that member Sandra Goudie had half the courage of the convictions that she has attempted to demonstrate tonight she would be proposing to the leadership of her party that John Key take down his parliamentary-funded website which says that people should vote National. I would recommend that he take it down anyway just because it is an obscene suggestion to make to a New Zealander. That website is funded by Parliament. The member should suggest to all of her colleagues who have put out electioneering material with the parliamentary crest on it suggesting that people vote for National that they should not just withdraw from the debate but have the honesty to pay back that money as well. But she will not. 
Bill English issued a pledge card to the public of New Zealand under the exact same rules as we did and funded from the exact same source. The member should say to Bill English—“Mr 23 Percent” and going down the gurgler as he was then—that he should pay back that money. But instead she has the audacity to come into this Chamber to make accusations against Labour. We did exactly the same as National did. National did it in the first part of the year because its members thought that the election would be in July. But they got it wrong; it was in September. We know that in the 2002 election in the 1999 election in the 1996 election in the 1993 election and in the 1990 election National did exactly the same under the same rules with the same money and it never paid back a cent. 
As my colleague Moana Mackey said there is a word for saying one thing in this House and doing another thing outside in public. Tragically for some bizarre reason we are not allowed to use that term in Parliament to demonstrate that when people say one thing in here and do another thing outside it is immoral. That is the immorality of the National Party and that is the immorality that that member is now standing in this Committee and accusing others of demonstrating. 
I ask members to look at John Key’s website. It says “Vote National” and it is funded by Parliamentary Service. I ask members to look at his postcards which have the parliamentary crest on them and say “Vote National” under the exact same rules. I ask members to look at his letter to community organisations inviting them to come to a meeting. Tragically nobody turned up. Oh that is not true—two people turned up and they were both National Party members. Further if the member had any courage or any convictions she would say to her leader that National must not take one cent of the $7 million of parliamentary funding that it is given because to use it to communicate with members of the public is immoral corrupt and something that must not happen. 
National members want one rule for the National Party and another rule for any other parties. Frankly this is nonsense. We all know that a genuine attempt was made by all parties to get agreement on this issue. Gerry Brownlee who interestingly enough has not been allowed to take a call in the debate tonight—extraordinary given that he is National’s shadow Leader of the House—led the negotiations to get cross-party agreement on this issue. He said in the House that National agreed with these rules being rolled over it just did not agree with the date. Then National changed its mind but no other party did. Members of the public understand that. National pulled out of genuine attempts to get cross-party agreement. 
If we did as National members say and we pulled the rules we would end up with exactly the same chaos as we had previously. Everybody agreed to these rules. That is why Bill English put out his Parliamentary Service - funded pledge card in 2002. It did not do him any good. But under that party’s so-called morals he should still pay back that money—same pledge card same rules same funding. Why has the National Party not paid back the money that it owes? It owes it to the public of New Zealand and it continues to use it.