Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13231] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time 
. In considering what is actually quite a straightforward piece of legislation which simply extends the expiry date of the current legislative framework from 31 December this year to 1 July 2009 it is very interesting to look at who so far has spoken against the bill. This bill relates exclusively to parliamentary matters. The Opposition spokesperson on such matters is the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee. Mr Brownlee is not known around the House it is fair to say for being someone who hides his light behind a bushel. He is not known for being a shy member of Parliament. Yet despite this he has not contributed at all to the debate on this bill and there has to be a reason for that. 
The reason Gerry Brownlee has not spoken at all on the debate on this bill is that if he did speak he would have to admit not only that the National Party secretly supports this bill but actually that it was that party’s own idea. To use Mr Brownlee’s actual words from question time less than 2 weeks ago: “… National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period.” Without Mr Brownlee in the House National’s charismatic team of Tony Ryall and Nick Smith have been trying to explain this away. They have come up with all sorts of creative explanations for what Mr Brownlee meant. But his comments make the matter quite clear: National supports a rollover to the current legislative framework. Of course it does; it was National’s suggestion. The simple reason that the National shadow Leader of the House has not spoken in this debate is that to do so would be to give away National’s dirty secret. Despite that party’s bluff and bluster its members actually support this bill; they actually use it and they actually need it. 
The other reason we know that National does not really oppose this bill is that National members keep spending the money that the Parliamentary Service provides for communication services. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Get out of here—do they? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that it is terrible. We have seen the now infamous “nick4nelson” pamphlet. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Nick for Nelson? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The “nick4Nelson” pamphlet. It is pretty rough on the eye but it calls on people to change the Government. There is only one way people can change the Government in New Zealand if they believe in the rule of law and that is to use their vote to do it. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: So who’s paying the money? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Woolerton asked if Nick Smith used taxpayers’ money to pay for it. Yes he did. It is an exceptionally revealing document because it not only says “nick4nelson” and why New Zealand needs a new Government but on the inside cover lists about 10 people who are praising Nick Smith for his work as the local MP. What is insightful about that is that for most of us who have the privilege of being constituency members simply helping people is reward enough in itself. But for Nick Smith it means going around to get quotes from people about how wonderful he is and then asking the taxpayer to pay to publicise those quotes on a pamphlet and distribute it. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Does it give membership details? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No it does not give membership details but it does say “www.nick4nelson.co.nz” and it asks people to change the Government. Equally the chief Opposition whip Anne Tolley has sent a survey form around her electorate asking people not only who they intend to vote for at the next election but who they voted for at the last election. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does Bill English know that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Bill English knows all about this because Bill English knows how these rules work. He is an expert on how this bill works because he knows how to spend Parliamentary Service money for communication purposes better than any other member of this House. Bill English knew that when he was the leader of the National Party. So despite all the claims of outrage from National speakers opposite they keep spending money from parliamentary resources on the very things they say we should not be able to spend the money on. 
Given that they really support the bill they have had to come up with all kinds of imaginative reasons to oppose it. First they tried to claim that somehow this bill changes the rules from what everyone thought they always were. It does not. The bill has a very simple purpose: to extend the understanding until 1 July 2009. It shifts the date for the expiry of the rules determining what is happening right now—rules that Nick Smith is using rules that Anne Tolley is using rules that Bill English used with great gusto in 2002. We need only look at the election pledge pamphlet that Bill English issued in that fateful year when he had responsibility for the National Party together with Nick Smith and Tony Ryall when they were the young bright leaders of their party. I have in front of me a pamphlet that they put out as their commitment to their country—the pledge commitment that went out from the National Party during the year of the 2002 election campaign. There is a big House of Representatives crest on it and they used the pamphlet to communicate with voters. 
Hon Bill English 
: It was legal! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr English says that it was legal; that it was within the rules of the time. He could still go and put this pamphlet out now under the rules that he is voting against and saying are such terrible things for us to have. It was a highly political document on which Bill English set out his 2002 promises for that year’s election campaign. In fairness to Mr English it did not solicit votes it did not ask for donations and it did not ask people to join the National Party—because nobody joined the National Party in 2002; in fact people were leaving it in great droves. It was a highly political document paid for by Parliamentary Service’s money. That was the understanding that we had all previously operated under. 
The National members are now describing in the House that such action is corrupt. Bill English said it was legal back then in 2002 as though his own pledge commitment was alright. OK he does not want to talk about his 2002 commitment but let us look at what the National Party is doing in 2007. I have in front of me a 2007 publication from somebody called John Key the leader of the National Party who is borrowing Hillary Clinton’s phrase “Join the conversation.” There is a big photo of John Key the National Party logo the National Party website and on the National Party website there are media releases from people who are saying how good National’s policies are. In question time today Mr English said it was terrible that on a taxpayer-funded website there might be a media release relating to the policy of a party. Yet the very website that John Key asks people to go to is stacked full of highly partisan vote-gathering media releases from the National Party. That was funded this year by the National Party from Parliamentary Service along with the “Change the Government … nick4nelson” leaflet. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They’re saying it’s not good for us—it’s illegal—but for them it’s great. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Duynhoven makes a good point. They want to have one law for some people; they want to be able to keep these laws for themselves and not for other people. I want to know from Nick Smith who knows a lot about judicial matters whether this is corrupt legislation. If it is not corrupt now in 2007 why should it be corrupt after 31 December? 
Hon Member 
: Because it’s an election year. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: So in election year John Key does not plan to communicate with the voters who put him into Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not true! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: “That’s not true!” said Mr Bill English. So in 2008 he does not want to have to communicate with his own constituents. It is very very revealing when these things come up. I ask the National members if it was corrupt of Bill English to put out a 2002 pledge card pamphlet. Is he now saying as the National members are asserting in this debate that revalidating this law is a terrible corrupt act? Nick Smith is using his usual over-the-top phrases that none of his own colleagues believe in when he says them much less the public or other MPs. If that is the case I ask members whether Bill English should pay back what was spent in 2002 under the rules we were operating under at that time. Of course he does not think he should have to because the National members do not hold themselves to the same rules that they want to hold other MPs to in this House. 
 The other imaginative argument that National members have run is that somehow this bill has changed the rules relating to the accounting of parliamentary spending under the Electoral Act. That self-described electoral law expert—that is what he called himself to the media—Tony Ryall chaired the select committee with regard to the Electoral Act. Those members know that the Electoral Act passed by National makes it absolutely clear that communications by MPs in their roles as MPs rather than as candidates do not count towards election spending. National MPs know that—it is their law and nothing in this bill changes it. 
They have also been busy rewriting history and talking about the fact that laws relating to the electoral system have only ever progressed on a bipartisan basis. The reality is that Labour has tried to reach consensus on this bill. Indeed six of the eight parties in Parliament support this bill because we have engaged in this process in good faith. The great irony is that despite the fact that six of the eight parties are supporting the bill—and the National Party is one of the two parties not supporting it—the National Party is the single biggest beneficiary of the law that is being passed with this third reading debate this afternoon. National is the party that receives the most money from the Parliamentary Service yet National is saying that members of Parliament in 2008 should not communicate with their constituents. 
I want to hear from the next National Party speaker as to whether these surveys that are going out asking people what party they voted for at the last election and who they are voting for at the next election paid for by Parliamentary Service will be issued in 2008. I guarantee we do not get an answer on that question because National members plan to keep on doing what they have always done. The National Party needs this bill to pass its third reading more than any other party in Parliament and those members sit there with their imaginative arguments trying to argue both sides of the coin even though they cannot wait to keep ploughing into Parliamentary Service resources in that regard. 
This bill provides clear transparent and fair rules so that all MPs can continue doing their jobs. I commend the bill to the House.