Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13161] 
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 14 November. 
Clause 4 Expiry 
( 
continued 
)  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen whether he could give us an explanation as to why there are a couple of incredibly divergent ways that candidates will be handled in this election campaign because of these rules. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s on the expiry date. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh on the expiry date. I would like him to explain to us why this bill should not expire early. I think that this bill should expire early and that Parliament should have to go back and sort it out again on this basis. 
As this Minister knows electoral law in this country has more or less been developed on a reasonably bipartisan or multipartisan basis over many many years. It has been done on the principle that the victor should not be able to change the election law every time it wins. In my time in Parliament and also in the Minister’s time the issue that has been the sole area of divergence amongst political parties was when the electoral rolls would close for an election period. National used to say it was 1 month before the election and Labour used to say it was the day before the election. Well now there seems to be agreement on the rules that stand. 
Virtually every piece of significant electoral law has been agreed between both parties and it has been for the very good reason that we should not have a situation where the victor is able to write the electoral rules to suit itself. As the member knows things like the Standing Orders operate on a principle of what goes around comes around. What might happen to an Opposition because of a Government’s majority in one Parliament might easily be reversed to happen to that Government when it is in Opposition next time. It is that principle that has encouraged parties to more or less always come to some sort of agreement on electoral law. 
The Minister can say that Labour has voted against National’s electoral laws forever but I say to him that he should go and look at the debate. There have been arguments on very minor issues but on the key issues in respect of the electoral settings in this country there has been agreement between the parties. The Minister should look for example at the development of the MMP legislation in 1993-94. Both parties worked very cooperatively. Mr McCully and Mr Caygill worked very cooperatively to get that legislation together. That ensured that the legislation is durable. Parliament has not had to change the basic framework of that legislation. That is the benefit of having all parties working together. I would like the Minister to answer why we cannot have that approach this time. 
Can the Minister answer—with the red printing presses running overtime down at Labour Party headquarters—why he is proposing a number of pieces of legislation that state that if this brochure I am holding were distributed by a sitting Labour MP it would not be an election expense but if it were distributed by a non-MP Labour candidate then it would be an election expense? How does that work? It is the same brochure with the same content but when distributed by an MP it is not counted as an election expense whereas when it is distributed by a candidate it is counted as an election expense. I think the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee. 
A number of amendments have been moved on the expiry date of this bill because we think the expiry date should change. Parliament should have to work in the way that it has done previously to make sure that there is a multiparty approach to this bill. These sorts of bills are all about the majority enforcing its view on the minority without any consultation or taking matters into account. The consequence of that is that we are ending up with a bill that sets a very bad precedent. Of course the Minister will say that Gerry Brownlee agreed with all this. That is simply not correct. Gerry Brownlee made it absolutely clear that this bill would not work in the interests of New Zealand and as has been stated previously that the rules that applied before the last election should apply now because they were clear. 
If the Labour Party used $800000 of taxpayers’ money to send its pledge card then the pledge card should have counted as an election expense. Why are the rules changing in this legislation so that the pledge card will no longer be considered an election expense? With what justification is this happening? Does the Minister have the same justification as Peter Brown gave the Committee last night which is that the legislation will protect him from the Auditor-General? 
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. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Dr Smith is a member who cannot even shut up. He should sit down and shut up. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh the Minister says “shut up”. I would say to the Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member’s time has expired. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not for him to be the Chair—or has he taken over that role constitutionally as well? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will just warn the member. The bell went and the member knows he should sit down. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those two speeches were so full of factual errors and misinterpretation that it was quite extraordinary. Let us just take one small point. Dr Smith said he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is remarkable. He has been an MP for 17 years but he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is very very well done. How prescient of him at the start of his political career—17 years as an MP! 
Secondly Dr Smith has got it wrong about the Electoral Act and the definition in relation to MPs. That definition appears in the 1993 Electoral Act which was introduced under the previous National Government. It has not changed and it is still the same—he is wrong. 
The third point is that we were asked why we did not try to put in place new legislation. Well we did try. That is exactly what we have spent much of this year talking with all the other parties about. National got to the point where it said it actually thought that was a good idea but it would not support it. National wanted to debate the issue in the context of the Electoral Finance Bill so it said it was not going to agree to a new permanent regime. National members did say the legislation should be rolled over and yes rolled over to the middle of next year sometime just before an election. That was also pretty clear. 
Then the member said that he has never said anything like “Vote for me” using the Parliamentary Service expenditure. What does “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” mean from a National MP? Or does he think that Nelson voters are so thick that when there is a Labour-led Government in office “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” does not mean “Vote National”? Is that what he thinks? The member actually has one of the more intelligent electorates in the country in Nelson although voters there have had a lapse for six elections in a row in that regard. Actually no I am sorry—it is not six; it is five. Dr Smith was first elected in 1993 not 1990. He actually did not get elected in 1990. He has been an MP in this place for only 14 years; I correct myself as well as him on that. The newsletter also said “nick4nelson”. “Nelson get nicked” we might say if we put it somewhat differently in terms of the approach from that member. 
The real point about all of this is that the law is not settled. What this bill does is to return the law and extend the current law to what everybody understood it to be before 2005. That includes the National Party’s understanding of it in the 2002 election campaign with Bill English’s “My commitment” public advertisement in that campaign having been paid for by the Parliamentary Service. Or is Mr English a hypocrite? Oh well that is an interesting response to that point. One can fill in the gaps after the three dots in that regard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Auditor-General find him in breach? No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Auditor-General refused to do was to look at what National did spend its money on. He was asked to do so and he refused. He did not look at the money that that party spent on staff in 2005 and at what those staff were doing and we all know that because National refused to tell us what those staff were doing. Those members refused to reveal their accounts at that point. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh we know exactly what the member’s staff were doing at that point: they were engaged in electioneering. 
But the fundamental flaw in the argument from the National Party is this: MPs do not stop being MPs 3 months 6 months or 9 months before an election. MPs stop being MPs at midnight on election night unless re-elected. That is actually the law. And MPs surprisingly are engaged in politics. I know that Dr Smith is not. I know that Dr Smith adopts a very pure life publicly and privately. I know that he always tells the truth. I know that he never questions the referee whether it is the Auditor-General or the court or whomever it may be. I know that no member of the National Party would ever accuse independent assessors in the Public Service of lying. I know that some of them gave the impression that they did— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Like Prebble—we caught him lying. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh the member did—sorry he just did. I correct that. He did just accuse the State Services Commissioner of lying—and Mr Hunn the former commissioner and Mr Sherwin the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I ask whether there is anybody else the member would like to add to the list of liars in the public sector inside the Chamber and under privilege. I ask whether the member would like to add any more names in that regard. The only person I know of in this House about whom a court has said he lied is Dr Nick Smith. The court said it did not believe the tale that he told. That is what the court said. 
And I say MPs do have to explain their views and will continue to do so. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Regardless of the law fair or not that was the Deputy Prime Minister for those who are listening and who are not aware of that fact. The Deputy Prime Minister is currently a constituent of mine in the seat of Napier back in the mighty Hawke’s Bay. Ironically he is a man who is here right now putting this bill before the House to screw the scrum in electoral law and he is a man whom I challenged last week to stand against me in a general election in the seat of Napier. And did he? The silence was deafening from the Deputy Prime Minister. He does not have the guts to stand against me in the seat of Napier to test whether he would be able to deliver on his laws—the screwing of the scrum that we are talking about today. 
It is that seat that I would like to bring voters back to tonight—back to the reality of what this proposed law will do. I personally believe it is wrong. I believe that elections should be fair that there should be an even playing field and that there should be no screwed scrum. 
I want to bring members back to a sense of reality. I want to bring members back to the lowest common denominator in an election. The lowest common denominator is the new candidate in a strong seat which might be a National seat or a Labour seat. He or she is a candidate who is put at the back of the party list for one reason or another. It brings back a sense of déjà vu I might add. In Napier we have a seat that was a Labour seat with a majority of 11800 in 1999. That was achieved when Michael Cullen was still within the seat of Napier. In 2002 Anne Tolley brought that majority back to 4500 despite a swing against National. Michael Cullen was still in that seat and that was achieved. The candidate did an amazing job bringing it against the swing back from 11800 to 4500. At the 2005 election— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not stand in the Napier seat and never have done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is actually a debating point. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: No one ever said that that member was standing in the seat of Napier; he was resident in the electorate of Napier. I would imagine that having the Deputy Prime Minister resident in the electorate of Napier would have some influence over the residents of that community. Obviously that was not the case with the vote going from 11800 to 4500 and then to a loss of 3600 for Labour. 
I want to come back to the junior candidate. Our president reminded us time and time again that there was a standard level of money that we could spend—$20000—and we could spend it only in the 90 days before the election. We had to authorise everything make sure our logos were fine but spend only $20000. Even with those rules it is not a fair playing field and I accept that; the power of incumbency is huge. If someone is an electorate MP the advantage is massive. That person has all sorts of things in his or her favour: an office a motor vehicle and staff. The playing field is not fair and I accept that. I accept that incumbency factor. I was happy to take on the underdog status. It is a bit like the Hawke’s Bay rugby team taking on Waikato this year or taking on Wellington Canterbury and Auckland; that team was the underdog. But the difference was that when that team took on those other teams the rules were the same for both and the teams expected to play on an even playing field. However that was not the case for me when I came in as an underdog candidate into the Napier seat that previously had had 11800 as its majority. 
It was not just the incumbency factor that I had to put up with. I could have accepted the benefits of incumbency for the sitting MP but on top of the $20000 another candidate is up against a whole lot more. We turned up to campaigns at the Eastern Institute of Technology where there were literally hundreds of pens with the parliamentary crest on them being handed out to the young students. At candidate meeting after candidate meeting that we went to these pens with the parliamentary crest on were being handed out. On top of that there were newsletters coming out. Dr Cullen would have received into his own letterbox A4 newspaper pages out of the  
Napier Mail 
 funded by Parliamentary Service in those last 90 days. How is that fair? How is that fair—accepting the benefits of incumbency—to a new candidate coming into that situation? On top of that the pledge card came out at the same time. There was $800000 of advertising all funded by Parliamentary Service and all working against the new candidate. 
New Zealand has a sense of fairness. We understand that incumbency carries advantages but we want a fair playing field. We want the underdog to have a chance just like the Hawke’s Bay rugby team that stood up against Auckland Waikato and other teams around New Zealand. That team had a tough field to play on but when the two teams got on to the field in these games they were playing by the same rules. On a number of occasions Hawke’s Bay actually stood up against the odds and beat those champion teams. That is what the National side of the Chamber is calling for—fairness. 
We accept that an incumbent MP has an advantage; we have to accept that. But when we get into the final stage of the election process there needs to be fair rules for new candidates coming in. That is why National members stand for that fairness. That is why I challenged Dr Cullen to stand against me in the seat of Napier at the next election to have a crack at Napier to put his bill to the test and to see whether he could win the seat of Napier back for his party. Unfortunately I have news that may be bad news or it may be good news; he did not take up the challenge and is not prepared to have a go. Thank you very much. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 4 “Expiry”. If Labour is going to force this bill through I want it to expire as soon as possible. I have presented 31 amendments on the expiry clause and those 31 amendments have 31 different dates. They start from 1 January 2008 and go through to 31 January 2008. The reason I picked 1 January is that it is a significant date; it is the day that the Electoral Finance Bill comes into play. In that legislation we have something that threatens our democracy in New Zealand. It is probably the biggest threat we have ever had to democracy. It is a double jeopardy to freedom of speech and possibly to good government. It is probably the greatest threat in our history. 
The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is absolutely bad enough by itself. It should not exist at all. Labour is very keen to tell us that this bill is nothing much and just restores the conditions that existed before the Auditor-General’s review of parliamentary spending in the 2005 election. That is blatantly untrue. This bill will make the spending that is best epitomised by Labour’s pledge card and also any form of soft electioneering quite acceptable and quite legal. That was definitely not legal before the Auditor-General’s review. Parliamentary spending for electioneering has never been allowed. It cannot have been legal before the Auditor-General’s review; otherwise he would not have rejected it. 
The public of New Zealand those beyond the beltway contrary to the Prime Minister’s belief were appalled when Labour expected them to pay for its pledge card. The public felt very strongly that Labour’s propaganda and spin should be paid for by Labour and they fully supported the idea that Labour should pay the money back. Does this Government really believe that in 2008 the public will suddenly have a change of heart? Why do Labour MPs think that they have the right to pass legislation that the people of New Zealand have very strongly indicated they do not want? Not only should this bill expire as soon as possible but Labour should never have insulted the public of New Zealand by even proposing it. 
Labour is very keen to assure the people of New Zealand that this is only a temporary bill. Yes temporary—with its original date it expires in June 2009. It exists only for long enough to give Labour a crutch to try to win the 2008 election. So there is no comfort to the public in this type of “temporary”. This bill expires not because Labour has suddenly got a conscience but because it will have had the benefit of the taxpayer’s money to campaign for an election that it is desperate to win. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak on clause 4 of this insidious bill the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I want to refer back to the Minister of Finance’s speech. I just want to point out to him before I start that if a member was elected in 1990 and we are now in the year 2007 that actually adds up to 17 years. It is a bit of a concern when even the Minister of Finance cannot add up. 
The essence of the debate around this insidious bill is that it creates separate rules for members of Parliament from those for the general public or for a candidate who is not a member of Parliament. My colleague Chris Tremain talked of his experiences as a candidate in the last election. I want to make it clear to the Committee when we look at this material here. We see that the red printing machine has been out in force. We have all this sort of material going out. That is not a problem. That is quite within the rules. It is happening outside an election year and it is all funded by the leader’s office. 
The material is talking about what the Government is doing—for example  
Supporting Kiwi Business 
;  
Healthy Wealthy and Wise 
; and  
Enhanced KiwiSaver: Investment for a Sustainable Future 
 etc. There is also a report by Trevor Mallard from Hutt South on anger management. That is not a problem. There is nothing wrong with that. Come election year—and under the new Electoral Finance Bill come 1 January next year—this material with the parliamentary crest on it will be OK if it is funded by the Labour leader’s office. A Labour member who is a candidate standing for Labour can also under this bill put out this sort of propaganda and it will be within the rules—not a problem. But a candidate standing against that Labour member putting out similar stuff with no parliamentary funding will have to count it in his or her election expenses. 
That is what is not right about this bill we are debating tonight. That is what is so insidious and invidious about what this Government is doing by setting up one set of rules for incumbents—for political parties in Government and in Parliament and for MPs who are currently holding seats—and discriminating against even its own party’s candidates in terms of what they are able to put out around the electorate. 
If an MP has a budget of $65000 if he or she is an electorate MP on top of that he or she will have another $20000 to spend as a candidate. It will be under a different set of rules so he or she will be managing two budgets with two different sets of criteria and two different sets of rules. That candidate will be up against another candidate out in the field with only $20000. That will be the case for a whole 12 months. 
This bill before the Committee tonight will extend those rules through into the middle of 2009. One has to ask what is so special about 30 June 2009 other than the fact that it is the end of a financial year for an MP. Why would we choose 30 June? Is it an arbitrary date? We do not know. Of course if there had been any sort of cross-party discussions of any meaning whatsoever around this legislation then we would understand. Other than a couple of meetings between chiefs of staff which did not begin until the end of September—they have not as the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister implied been happening all year—there was no cross-party discussion all year. There were two meetings—two discussions between chiefs of staff from the end of September. If there had been any sort of cross-party talk maybe we would understand what this expiry date of 30 June 2009 signifies. 
National does not believe that this legislation is needed at all. The rules are clear. Every other person in this country if he or she breaks the rules has to learn to change his or her behaviour. That person gets punished and he or she has to change his or her behaviour to abide by the law. The Labour Government broke the rules at the last election. It should have been punished more than by just having to hand back the money it had stolen from the taxpayer. Labour should have been prosecuted for breaching the electoral spending cap. It was ineptness on the part of the police that Labour was not punished. Labour should have had to change its behaviour not the rules. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit “30 June” and substitute “1 July”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There were amendments in the name of Nicky Wagner. These have been ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.