Jones Shane: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Shane: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13250] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call in support of the earlier speaker—my colleague who is soon to leave the House—Marian Hobbs on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. This bill will pass. This bill has been subject to a great deal of haranguing and misinformation. This bill is a very simple bill. All it does is ensure that established practices which unfortunately have not been allowed to proceed as a consequence of politicking from the other side of the House can continue under the cloak of legitimacy given by this House. It is disappointing that many of the points made in relation to this bill have become embroiled in debates and misunderstandings pertaining to electoral finance matters. Of course the Electoral Finance Bill which is soon to reach us will no doubt pass as well. 
A few things need to be pointed out in relation to this appropriation bill so that those New Zealanders who have not already been put to sleep by contributions from the other side of the House are possessed of the necessary facts. Firstly all parties in the House were consulted on this bill. Secondly all parties were prepared to work together in a genuine attempt to reach consensus. However it is very saddening—but accurate—to say that our friends in the National Party on the other side of the House decided to play a game of pettifogging and turn this into a petulant set of outbursts designed to score political points rather than to establish and continue a very well-tried system of funding the genuine activities of MPs. 
It needs to be pointed out that all legitimate contributions that were designed to get us over a point of consensus were tried. In early September this year the Government’s representatives were informed by the National Party’s negotiators that rather than supporting a substantive amendment the National Party would be prepared to support only an extension of the current rules. They also admitted that these rules were working well. Mr Brownlee—my fellow traveller to the United States—said also that National was happy for a rollover provided it would lead to a much shorter election period. So it remains to be said that the Opposition is purely opportunistic. That is to be expected in adversarial politics; however it is not a decision that has been arrived at by Dr Smith and others on the basis of some lofty political principle but rather on trivial miscalculated tactical point-scoring exercises in the House. That is to be expected. 
 It is important that we bear in mind that the larger debate looms in front of us as to what is to pass through this House as a reasonable attempt to ensure that money spent in the pursuit of electoral victory is premised on the principles of transparency and that people who do contribute are required to do so in such a way that they do not undermine the political process that we have every election as we saw in the last election. It is very difficult for the public actually to understand what is really happening in this short relatively inconsequential amendment represented in this bill which will pass. It is unfortunate that it has become embroiled in another set of issues. But members can rest assured; we look forward to that debate as well. 
This bill is regularising what both parties could have committed to had it not been for the main Opposition party seeing this as being a petty opportunity to score political points. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.