Tremain Chris: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13165] 
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.