Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This afternoon I want to draw the House's attention to the report tabled at 2 o'clock. Far from what the last Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa said in the House—that the priorities are housing health or education—what this report recommends is the biggest increase in the funding of Parliament in over 25 years: a 20 percent increase an extra $13 million a year. It's an insult to taxpayers. It's a recipe for the parties in this coalition Government to rort the taxpayer for their political positioning. The first thing this report proposes is deeply ironic because in the controversial electoral law changes members opposite have lectured us about the importance of the party vote; that the number of MPs must absolutely reflect the party vote—except when it comes to funding of political parties. What this report recommends is a guaranteed level of funding regardless of how many votes you get at the election. It is a rort for the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party whose support is falling in the polls and this report says that they will get 8 percent of the funding even if their public support is a fraction of that. I say that is nothing short of a rort by Government parties to secure taxpayer funding.And then we come to this next proposition and that is that list MPs will get the same funding as democratically elected constituency MPs. Now just by coincidence—just a coincidence—we have the first Government after eight elections dominated by list MPs. And guess what? They want to help themselves to another $5 million—Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The report the member refers to is not a Government report. It is a report that has been prepared by an independent panel. It does have a former Labour MP and a former National MP on it but it is not a Government report so to attribute it to the Government is misleading and inaccurate.SPEAKER: It is misleading and inaccurate but I think for me to stop a member because another member disagrees is inappropriate. If the member thinks that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is deliberately misleading the House as opposed to accidentally misleading the House then he knows his remedies.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At the beginning I made absolutely plain that this is a report tabled in Parliament today of which the dominant influence is Annette King. It is a stitch-up job by this Government to get extra funding.Now let's come to the next point and that is with respect to ministerial offices. What this report proposes is an extra 31 staff in parliamentary offices. They say that when they switch to being Ministers their staff expands. I've done it twice as a Minister. Your staff goes up considerably and they want to grab that extra funding. There are also two very subtle changes. This report proposes that Parliament should not have to face the normal budget scrutiny for additional expenditure. It says that there should just be automatic increases for Parliament's own purposes. That's wrong. Parliament should have to face the same budgetary scrutiny for public money as every other Government agency. And I have to express concern that rather than the rules and the policy of funding being determined by neutral public servants they are being politicised under this report. Now it's justified on this basis: that somehow we have to increase the funding for ourselves—that somehow the ratio of MPs to the population has radically changed. It has not changed. From the time of first past the post there was an MP for 30000 people; it is about the same. The level of funding as a proportion of GDP has not changed. Only a fortnight ago the Prime Minister announced that MPs would be giving up their pay increase. There was a saving of less than $1 million a year. This report proposes increasing Parliament's rations by $13 million a year and I challenge members opposite to say they will not support this report that is nothing less than a rort of public money for party political purposes. During the time of the Clark Government the expenses in real terms of Parliament went up by 25 percent. Under the nine years of the National Government they went up by 5 percent. There is no justification for this big increase. Far from being concerned about the issues of New Zealanders what is being proposed is the biggest increase not for education not for health not for infrastructure not for security but for Parliamentary spin doctors and political propaganda and that is a very—SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the House to table analysis that I have received from the Parliamentary Library on the real expenditure for Parliament since MMP was introduced.SPEAKER: The question is that leave be granted. Is there any objection? There appears to be none; it may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.