Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13241] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is a very simple bill. Basically it reflects in part the Speaker’s directions. Several MPs—two from National two from Labour and I think one from every other party with the exception of Progressive—have sat down on a regular basis for quite some time and debated and discussed the Speaker’s directions and they have been amended accordingly. When they were recently signed off the Auditor-General’s opinion was sought. I am not sure whether his opinion was formally sought or whether the Speaker spoke with him privately; I understand that a National member spoke with him privately. He agrees with the sign-off— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He does not. 
PETER BROWN 
: He agrees with the sign-off of the Speaker’s directions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He does not agree with this bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not talking about this bill. If the member listened for a bit he might learn something because he has misunderstood this bill totally. What he said publicly in Parliament which will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 is almost 100 percent wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Explain. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will endeavour to explain. 
The Speaker’s directions are reflected in this bill. This bill tells us as do the Speaker’s directions what the funding entitlements are for parliamentary purposes. I will not read that because it is self-explanatory. But the bill also goes on to explain what electioneering is in the time of an election period. If in that period a member of Parliament goes out and produces a communication—which one could say was a brochure a pamphlet or whatever—that explicitly seeks support for a party or a member then he or she is deemed to be electioneering. If a member seeks a vote for that party or that member he or she is electioneering. If that member encourages a person to become a member of a political party he or she is electioneering. It is quite quite concise and it is quite sensible. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does Labour’s pledge card meet that definition? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is questioning the pledge card. Now I cannot recall what the pledge card is but I have here a pledge brochure. I cannot find a great deal of difference between what I have been told about the pledge card and what I have been told about this pledge brochure. This brochure was paid for by the National Party out of its parliamentary funding. It is a huge brochure— 
Hon Member 
: So the taxpayer paid. 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Auditor-General say about that publication from National? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is interjecting to a degree his colleague has objected to. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I just asked the question: what did the Auditor-General say about National? 
PETER BROWN 
: When that member was asked a question he would not answer it. I am answering some of his questions but I am not wasting my 10 minutes on a member who is totally confused and does not know what he is talking about. 
The last time Nick Smith spoke in this House he told members and people in the gallery that he could use the $64000 he got each year to run his electorate office—or offices because as a constituent MP he is entitled to two or expected to have two—to advance himself. That is absolute poppycock and he knows it. He knows that that money is to pay for the lease of his two offices to pay for cleaning them to pay for the power they use and for the equipment in them and to pay for the surveys the National Party puts out from time to time. Those surveys are put out on an individual basis but we know they are produced by the National Party’s head office. He is also allowed to spend part of that money on advertising the fact that he is a resident of Nelson that he has an office there and that he runs a clinic from time to time. That is what he has the money for. But he has told the public of New Zealand that he will use it to advance himself totally. He knows he would not be allowed to get away with that. This bill in part stops that practice from occurring. He knows that this bill in part stops that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Under this bill I can. 
PETER BROWN 
: No the member cannot. He should try to find it out. What I would like you to do— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Not you Mr Assistant Speaker. What I would like the member’s party to do—and I might propose an amendment to the Speaker’s rulings in relation to the National Party in particular—is to present audited accounts to Parliamentary Service to see how its members use their money because it is absolutely disgraceful that the member is telling the public of New Zealand that under the bill he gets $64000 a year to advance himself. That is the impression he has given and that is not right and the member and his colleagues know it. His colleagues know that they do not get that money to advance themselves. They have to have an office they have to have all the equipment in the office and they have to have the office cleaned and what have you. 
It is legitimate for a Government to put out brochures to tell the public of New Zealand what they are entitled to do under any specific piece of legislation. That is the correct thing to do. The member or an earlier member—I think it was Tony Ryall—said that if a Labour Party candidate distributed those brochures to people he or she would be in breach of this law. That is rubbish and Tony Ryall knows it—and Nick Smith knows it. Nick Smith shakes his head but yes he does know it. He has been here 17 years and he does not know how the system works? I do not believe that. 
I have been critical of the Auditor-General and I stand by everything I said. In the document he produced early on in the piece—in June 2005 I think it was—in which he apparently was saying that he would take a tougher line on and a closer look at how we spend our money during the election period he has the heading “Complementary rules and standards should apply”. I will read to the House part of what is under this bullet point. I know I have read it before but maybe the honourable members from the National Party will take note of it. It says here that rules and standards for publication should “identify clear and workable procedures for the approval of publicity before publication takes place;”. It goes on to say a few other things. New Zealand First was caught by the Auditor-General largely because of this brochure I am holding. New Zealand First produced this brochure which outlines our policies. It does not ask for a vote it does not ask for people to become party members and it does not ask for money. It does not ask for anything. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s fine. 
PETER BROWN 
: The brochure outlines New Zealand First policies. That is what we are meant to do. Bill English is acknowledging that and I thank him for that. 
Let me make it quite clear that our people went along to Parliamentary Service and asked whether this brochure was OK. We sought permission before publication. We went further than that and asked the Chief Electoral Office whether it was OK and we got a clean bill of health on both counts. We followed the rules that the Auditor-General recommended and then we found out we were captured by the Auditor-General’s ruling in his report entitled  
Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election 
. We followed the rules we followed the procedure but we were captured. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The Auditor-General’s report came after the event. 
PETER BROWN 
: As the honourable member says that was after the event. 
We could not have done anything other than what we did. I do not know whom we could have asked. Our people asked for permission conscientiously and diligently but we were captured. The Auditor-General told the Hon Peter Dunne that two parties in this Parliament did not break any rules. He said to Peter Dunne that those two parties were United Future and New Zealand First. I understand the Hon Peter Dunne asked the Auditor-General whether he would put that in his report and the Auditor-General said no. 
We welcome this bill because it reinforces in legislation what we have put in the Speaker’s directions. This legislation will make clear for everybody involved in the next election the terms for using parliamentary funds as expenditure. We welcome this bill and we support it wholeheartedly at its third reading.