Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13239] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In 1988 a Labour member of Parliament was found guilty of committing a corrupt practice. We need to be quite plain today that this law makes what was corrupt now lawful. Let me recite the offence of that period because it speaks volumes about the importance of this debate today. Reg Boorman back in the time of the previous Labour Government was trying to secure his re-election in the Wairarapa electorate and he extensively used his parliamentary budget to win that election. The judge ruled that that was a corrupt practice—that he had breached the $20000 limit in using taxpayers’ money. But this bill says that it is quite OK to use parliamentary money and more significantly when tied up with the Electoral Finance Bill it makes such expenditure outside the $20000 limit. 
Did anybody in 1988—anybody in the media or any member of the Labour Party—defend Reg Boorman and say that his rort was OK? No they did not; they said that it was corrupt. And that corrupt practice prevented Reg Boorman from ever being able to stand for Parliament again. That has been the settled law through all the period since. Yet through this sneaky dirty bill and under a fragile majority in this House we are today to make what was corrupt right. But I say that it does not; it was corrupt then and it is corrupt today. I also say that this— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What a load of rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I ask Mr Woolerton because he and his colleagues said to the House— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’m saying you are talking a load of rubbish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well which part does the member agree with? Does he agree that Reg Boorman was kicked out of this Parliament for a corrupt practice? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’re exaggerating. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well no he was not? I have not exaggerated a single piece of history that has occurred. Let us take the next chapter of history. Labour in the 2005 election put out this pledge card I am holding up. It breached the law in two respects. In relation to the first the Auditor-General said it was wrong to spend $820000 of public money on this pledge card. But even more significantly the Chief Electoral Officer at that time David Henry said that this pledge card should have been included in Labour’s $2 million limit. Let me just recite those numbers. The limit that any party can spend on campaigning was $2 million; this card exceeded that amount by $800000; so Labour broke the law—broke the law—by not including it. It broke the law not just by a little bit by a thousand dollars or two but by $800000. Yet today this sick desperate Labour Party is passing a law to make both those illegal acts lawful. This bill will mean that it will be OK for the Labour Party to rort the public purse for another pledge card. That will be OK. But even more significantly the $800000 spent on the pledge card will not be included in the campaign limit. 
Mr Swain asked this question: will National use the provisions of this law to produce material next year? Let us just look at the numbers. Mr Swain is saying that $17 million—which amount is just by coincidence; Labour has increased the budget by 20 percent—can be spent and is controlled by this bill and at the same time that party is saying that I and the National Party cannot spend more than $2 million of public money on campaigning. This is about $17 million compared with $2 million. It will appal me that I will not be able to work hard with the volunteers in my electorate—citizens who want to change the Government quite legitimately. They will not be able to run fashion shows as we did this year or do as we did on this Saturday when we had a fundraiser at the A and P show. We will not be allowed to spend that money on campaigning but we will be able to spend the $17 million out of the public purse. I say to members opposite that that is a corruption of our election laws. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’ll have $7 million—$7 million! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And I say to Mr Woolerton that I am damned proud of this country’s democratic heritage. I am proud of the fact that we were the first country to allow New Zealanders regardless of wealth and regardless of race to be able to vote for members of this Parliament. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’re in the money—you’re in the money. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am proud of the fact I tell Mr Woolerton that we are the sixth oldest continuous parliamentary democracy in the world. I am proud of the fact that we were the first country in the world to give women the vote. But today I hide my head in shame because what we are doing through this bill is not just an issue of the next election; we are undermining the democratic heritage of this beautiful country of ours. In a sick partisan act we are skewing the rules solely to help the Labour Party. 
I know that the Labour Party in Nelson is incredibly weak. I know that it has the weakest organisation ever because the people of Nelson have no faith in Labour. But Labour says that it does not care whether it has public support strong branches and strong organisation; it wants the right to be able to fleece the taxpayer and at the same time to shut down anybody else from having a say. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You spent more than any other party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand First says that we need this bill to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Well give us half your $7 million. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that members of Parliament who are honest and decent do not need laws to protect themselves from the Auditor-General. Members on this side of the House reject this bill and we are happy to follow the rules of the Auditor-General. We think the Auditor-General’s judgment about what was proper and what was improper was quite fair. 
I say to members opposite that this bill is about giving the fingers to the Auditor-General and if members of Parliament can give the fingers to the Auditor-General on the abuse of public money then why should officials and health bodies bother considering the Auditor-General? Why should those who work in our councils have respect for the Auditor-General if we in this Parliament say we will just veto him when it suits us? Why should any of our 200000 public servants have respect for the Auditor-General when this bill gives him the fingers and says that Parliament is above the law? 
The tragedy of this bill is that it undermines not only our public respect for systems for the way in which public money should and should not be used but also the very essence of our democracy. I will be OK because I am a sitting member of Parliament; I will be able to use the public purse. But what about the average citizen who wants to compete to be a member of this House? This bill is all about creating a closed shop for Parliament. I know that the trade unions of members opposite have long been into closed shops creating a select club and grabbing the powers and privileges that go with it but we in the National Party say that it is morally wrong. It is morally bankrupt. We should not be overriding law that says that the things covered in this legislation were a corrupt practice. We say that the court decisions that have arisen out of both the Bob Clarkson case and the Reg Boorman case are perfectly able to be followed by this Parliament. We say to members opposite that they overrule the Auditor-General at their peril. 
That is what this bill does. It overrules the independent Auditor-General. Ultimately this bill says one thing: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This bill is a disdain on this House of Parliament. It is a disdain on our proud heritage as a democracy. It is solely about the crude attempts by Labour and Helen Clark unfairly to win a further term because they are not prepared to fight an election on the old rules. They are going to rort the taxpayer. They are going to cheat the rules and sadly this institution of Parliament will be the loser.