English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12767] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the previous Minister of Justice that “The Electoral Finance Bill needs to align with the review of parliamentary expenditure.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 My understanding is that that comment was made at a time when it was hoped that cross-party agreement could be reached on permanent rules with regard to parliamentary expenditure and that has not been possible. National has been happy to take the money and spend it but does not want to take any responsibility for the rules that enable it to do so. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Government’s attempts to reform parliamentary spending be credible when the bill introduced yesterday allows parliamentary parties to spend taxpayers’ money on things that would be election advertising if they were done by any other person or organisation having the effect of creating a virtually uncapped taxpayer slush fund for Labour Party advertising? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member well knows the spending is not uncapped. Indeed assuming an election after 1 July next year that spending will be very heavily capped. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Government can spend all it wants on its own programme. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is capped expenditure that the member receives and his leader receives. Secondly the National Party receives the largest portion of that expenditure. Thirdly the rules in the bill are exactly the same as the current rules. Finally it was the National Party that this year put out these documents which I am holding up that are on exactly that vote and going out to New Zealanders explaining National Party policy. Which word starting with “h” does that not describe? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill is to create an even playing field for all participants in the 2008 election; we are no longer a two-party Parliament: as well as an expanded number of political parties we have to formally accommodate other participants now known as third parties? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason I am taking this question is the reference to the parliamentary expenditure rules. I am of course not the Minister responsible for the Electoral Finance Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true. Even though the Electoral Finance Bill is mentioned in the question the Minister is not responsible. A point of order? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: A supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members do not please be quiet it will be impossible to be able to get through. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked my colleague whether I could take this point of order before his question. As Mr Woolerton put it that way being misled by the reference to the Electoral Finance Bill in the original question can he rephrase his question along the same lines but with regard to the appropriation bill soon to be considered by Parliament? In all other respects I think it is inside the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think that is perfectly acceptable. I have however in the meantime called the Hon Peter Dunne. [ 
Interruption 
] Has the member got his question? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Yes I have got my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Doug Woolerton. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It is a little bit dog-eared Madam Speaker but I still have the question. Does the Minister agree that the purpose of the other bill is to create an even playing field for all participants in the 2008 election; we are no longer a two-party Parliament: as well as an expanded number of political parties we have to formally accommodate other participants now known as third parties? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is absolutely correct. The allocation of money in that budget which is a capped parliamentary vote is based on fair principles. The party that gets the largest amount is the National Party. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister received any reports or advice that on grounds of principle some of those who stand to benefit from the provisions of this legislation will be declining to take up the funding provided to them by it if it is passed by this House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Sadly no. The party that gets the most is happy to take the money and use the money even if that is opposed to fair and transparent rules. Of course if it does not spend it on communications it will do what it did last time; it will spend it on staff who were engaged in election activity in 2005 and never investigated by the Auditor-General who in fact declined to look into those items of spending. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is National’s position that all parliamentary spending should be subject to the rules of the Electoral Act as it was in the past where in the 3 months before the election all spending can count as electoral spending if it solicits votes but his Government will try to pass a bill to exempt all parliamentary spending from the electoral spending rules? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The bill does not exempt Parliament in that respect. It makes it clear—as in the current Act and it merely repeats that—that electioneering is strictly defined. If the member cares to think why that is so members of Parliament are continuously engaged in promoting their party’s policies—even Mr Key tries to on occasions promote his party’s policies. It cannot be separated from the role of a member of Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Labour Government changed the rules whereby in the past money spent by MPs in the 3 months before the election period such as the pledge card could be caught as an election expense and therefore subject to quite tight rules whereas under the Government’s proposals MPs will be able to spend in a much broader way than any other member of the public in the period before the election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The current Act of Parliament merely repeats what was the understanding of everybody in this House before the last election and privately National Party members supported the bill we introduced but made it clear for political reasons they would have to oppose it in public. That is what took place in the private discussions they were part of. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table an email from Wayne Eagleson on 27 September to Heather Simpson making it quite clear that National will not be supporting the proposed extension of the existing legislation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: If a publication of a similar nature to the 2005 pledge card produced by the Labour leader’s office were to be released in the final 6 weeks of the election campaign next year by the parliamentary Labour leader’s office provided it did not state “vote for me” would it be legal under the bill tabled by him yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it would be treated in almost exactly the same way as this public advertisement put out by Mr English in 2002 on parliamentary spending which he subsequently tells us was completely inappropriate and immoral. I might further note that Mr Eagleson was the person who told us that what National sought was to extend the current bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have in my possession a document that sets out the fact that National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period. I seek leave to table that document along with the document of Mr Eagleson. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of the Labour Party’s policy on electoral reform for the first time ever done on a purely partisan basis is that private citizens and organisations will be heavily and tightly restricted on what they can spend rebutting Labour’s propaganda but the Labour Government will have at its disposal millions for Government advertising and that all MPs’ expenditure has been exempted from tight electoral spending rules meaning that taxpayers’ dollars will be sprayed around everywhere in Labour’s cause and privately raised money will have to be very carefully restricted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can confirm thanks to the very helpful intervention by Mr Gerry Brownlee is that Labour’s position is exactly the same as National’s on the parliamentary spending bill except that National members want a shorter period of time for electoral spending because they have so much money in their pockets they cannot spend it if the limitations in that regard start on 1 January. They have been caught out by their own front bench on this question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If there are any further interruptions members will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is there any measure in either the Appropriation Bill or the Electoral Finance Bill that will make the pledge card illegal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the Prime Minister would indicate that we will be most unlikely to use such a pledge card. It would be nice to get a pledge from National that it will not use any of its parliamentary funding for next year for anything that looks like the promoting of the National Party. I bet we will not get that pledge from National.