Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12949] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that that was a disgraceful speech. That member could have done a lot better. He has distorted the view the public will take of what an MP spends his or her money on. He has undermined this very occupation big time. He gets $65000 a year as any constituent MP does—list MPs get a good deal less I might add—and not one cent of it is wasted on electioneering. We advertise ourselves we advertise clinics we provide an office and we provide all the equipment in that office with that money. That member should have at least acknowledged that. If he even thinks that he will go out and spend $65000 a year on promoting himself as an MP in this place then I would say to him that he should not be here. He should be ashamed of himself even for thinking that. 
Clearly we need this law. We need this law and the simple reason we do I tell this House is that the Auditor-General did not understand the previous process. The Auditor-General did not understand the previous process. As far as New Zealand First is concerned the Auditor-General got it wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member Nick Smith that he has stretched the boundaries of interjection all afternoon and I ask him not to barrack consistently as he has just done to the member. I call Peter Brown. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s just corrupt. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not care whether the member apologises or withdraws. The man is a fool. He should be out of here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member Nick Smith that I will not take any more. 
PETER BROWN 
: The other morning Gerry Brownlee was on  
Morning Report  
with the Rt Hon Winston Peters debating this very bill. Winston sat there in silence whilst Gerry Brownlee put his case. Then when Winston put his case the member Gerry Brownlee interrupted no end and at one point he said that there was no definition of electioneering. We have a three-page bill here and the definition takes up quite a lot of space on it. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should listen and maybe he will learn something. The definition of electioneering is when a member goes out and asks for a vote for the individual or the party. He or she is then electioneering. The definition of electioneering— 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it different—why is it different? 
PETER BROWN 
: I ask that member to listen and she will learn something. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member can interject once or twice. She cannot barrack at the member with constant questions. That has gone on with two or three members this afternoon. I have given three warnings. This is the last warning. I have asked members to desist and the next time members will leave. 
PETER BROWN 
: Electioneering is asking for a vote either for the individual or for the party. Electioneering is asking for membership. Electioneering is asking for funds; that is electioneering. It is defined exactly in this bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member has given a definition of electioneering so I seek leave to table the definition of electioneering in the Electoral Finance Bill which does not define electioneering in the manner that he read. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debating point but of course the member can ask for leave. It is usual to do it at the end of a member’s speech and not interrupt the speech. The member has asked for leave to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is obviously quite confused. I think Madam Assistant Speaker that you should advise National members that we are debating not the Electoral Finance Bill but the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. That is where the definition that I am referring to is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. The member will continue please. 
PETER BROWN 
: That decision is easily understood. The document that we produced at the last election outlines New Zealand First’s policies. It was distributed before the election period and it is now still being distributed. It does not ask for a vote it does not ask for any money and it does not ask for membership. Another thing we have to comply with is having the crest on the back or somewhere and we have to have contact numbers. Our document has all of those things. It was taken to the Parliamentary Service for its approval and the service approved it. But the Auditor-General in his wisdom said that it did not qualify. Yet the Auditor-General said to the Hon Peter Dunne that two parties in this House were captured by his report and they should not have been in there—namely United Future and New Zealand First. Peter Dunne asked the Auditor-General whether he would make that clear but the Auditor-General said no he would not. 
So we have a document here that will cost us a lot of money. It is a document that complied with the rules and that was checked off by the referee the Parliamentary Service. But the Auditor-General said in his report that it did not comply although he told Peter Dunne privately—and National members can ask Peter Dunne themselves if they doubt my word—that New Zealand First and United Future had not broken the rules. We had followed the rules exactly. 
We need this law if for no other reason than to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General. It has been asserted here that the Auditor-General gave a very clear message beforehand. He gave nothing to New Zealand First. He had produced a report some months before that had dealt largely with ministerial spending. The Auditor-General did talk with Don Brash for well over an hour. Don Brash has admitted that. The Auditor-General did not talk to Winston Peters. He did not talk to me as the deputy leader of New Zealand First. I know that he did not talk to many other people but he did talk to Don Brash. He did alert Don Brash to his concerns—I will give the Auditor-General that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because the others refused to meet with him. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I say to the honourable member that there was no invitation for the others—like New Zealand First—to meet with the Auditor-General. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the Auditor-General to the leaders of each of the political parties prior to 2005 seeking a meeting to discuss the use of parliamentary— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PETER BROWN 
: The importance of a letter comes when one receives it not when it is tabled years after the event to say that it existed. No letter was received by New Zealand First and no meeting took place. 
The law that we are supporting right now is an extension of the current law. It should be expiring next month but we are extending it to take it past the next election—I think as Dr Cullen said to take the emotional heat out of the issue. Clearly we need some rules clearly we need some guidelines and clearly this law will do the job at hand. I say that from our point of view we welcome it. We welcome a law that governs this procedure as far as MPs are concerned. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that political parties MPs or candidates for political parties cannot go out there and outline their political policy. That is absolutely ridiculous. There is an obligation that befalls us all to go out there say what we stand for and explain it. That is what people vote for. We are not in here for our looks or our talent. We are here because we represent people who choose to vote for a political party that addresses the issues they are concerned about. It is an obligation that befalls all the political parties in this House. 
The message from the public is that they fully understand there have to be some guidelines and some rules in place under which MPs and political parties have to operate. We think this is particularly fair; it is not onerous. It allows us a good deal of freedom to explain what we want and what we stand for. We think New Zealanders are entitled to that. We know that politics is a tough hard game. We know that people need to compare one political candidate with another. Therefore we have to have rules that allow political parties to go out and sell their message and to say what they stand for on an individual basis as well so that the public can make its choice. That is what democracy is all about—the public having the final say. But to govern that some rules need to be in place. This bill will do that. It is a simple bill. 
Sandra Goudie 
: With Winston in the Government he gets to use taxpayers’ money. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member keeps on interjecting. I am sure that sooner or later she will say something that is worthwhile listening to. 
Ron Mark 
: Don’t bank on it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will not bank on it. The Parliamentary Service has gone through the rules and the Speaker has given new directions that I think every party has signed up to. I know privately that the National Party has signed up to them. I might add that when we were making the rules before we had this legislation when we were determining the five points about 5 or 6 years ago—we must not ask for votes we must not ask for money we must not ask for membership we must have contact numbers and we must show the crest on the document—the people making the loudest and the longest noise on the Parliamentary Service Commission were members of the National Party. National agreed that it supported all of those points and all that has happened since is that we have put those Speaker’s directions into law. I say that this will be a helpful piece of legislation when it comes to the next election. Thank you.