Ryall Tony: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13161] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen whether he could give us an explanation as to why there are a couple of incredibly divergent ways that candidates will be handled in this election campaign because of these rules. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s on the expiry date. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh on the expiry date. I would like him to explain to us why this bill should not expire early. I think that this bill should expire early and that Parliament should have to go back and sort it out again on this basis. 
As this Minister knows electoral law in this country has more or less been developed on a reasonably bipartisan or multipartisan basis over many many years. It has been done on the principle that the victor should not be able to change the election law every time it wins. In my time in Parliament and also in the Minister’s time the issue that has been the sole area of divergence amongst political parties was when the electoral rolls would close for an election period. National used to say it was 1 month before the election and Labour used to say it was the day before the election. Well now there seems to be agreement on the rules that stand. 
Virtually every piece of significant electoral law has been agreed between both parties and it has been for the very good reason that we should not have a situation where the victor is able to write the electoral rules to suit itself. As the member knows things like the Standing Orders operate on a principle of what goes around comes around. What might happen to an Opposition because of a Government’s majority in one Parliament might easily be reversed to happen to that Government when it is in Opposition next time. It is that principle that has encouraged parties to more or less always come to some sort of agreement on electoral law. 
The Minister can say that Labour has voted against National’s electoral laws forever but I say to him that he should go and look at the debate. There have been arguments on very minor issues but on the key issues in respect of the electoral settings in this country there has been agreement between the parties. The Minister should look for example at the development of the MMP legislation in 1993-94. Both parties worked very cooperatively. Mr McCully and Mr Caygill worked very cooperatively to get that legislation together. That ensured that the legislation is durable. Parliament has not had to change the basic framework of that legislation. That is the benefit of having all parties working together. I would like the Minister to answer why we cannot have that approach this time. 
Can the Minister answer—with the red printing presses running overtime down at Labour Party headquarters—why he is proposing a number of pieces of legislation that state that if this brochure I am holding were distributed by a sitting Labour MP it would not be an election expense but if it were distributed by a non-MP Labour candidate then it would be an election expense? How does that work? It is the same brochure with the same content but when distributed by an MP it is not counted as an election expense whereas when it is distributed by a candidate it is counted as an election expense. I think the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee. 
A number of amendments have been moved on the expiry date of this bill because we think the expiry date should change. Parliament should have to work in the way that it has done previously to make sure that there is a multiparty approach to this bill. These sorts of bills are all about the majority enforcing its view on the minority without any consultation or taking matters into account. The consequence of that is that we are ending up with a bill that sets a very bad precedent. Of course the Minister will say that Gerry Brownlee agreed with all this. That is simply not correct. Gerry Brownlee made it absolutely clear that this bill would not work in the interests of New Zealand and as has been stated previously that the rules that applied before the last election should apply now because they were clear. 
If the Labour Party used $800000 of taxpayers’ money to send its pledge card then the pledge card should have counted as an election expense. Why are the rules changing in this legislation so that the pledge card will no longer be considered an election expense? With what justification is this happening? Does the Minister have the same justification as Peter Brown gave the Committee last night which is that the legislation will protect him from the Auditor-General?