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:13125] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Well it was good that the Minister of Finance was forced to realise that this Parliament is not happy with the way the Government is pushing through this bill. The Opposition wants to make it absolutely clear to the people of New Zealand that this legislation is odious it is an annihilation of the multiparty approach to electoral law that we have seen in this country for many years and it will be bad for New Zealand. Together with the Electoral Finance Bill this clause 3 is the active clause that will legalise the use of the Labour Party pledge card which will be paid for by taxpayers’ money in the next election campaign. 
If people will recall the Auditor-General found that the Labour Party had stolen $800000 of taxpayers’ money and had illegally spent it on a pledge card that the party did not declare an election expense as it should have done. In the weeks prior to the 2005 general election the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry wrote to the Labour Party upon the complaint of a number of people some of whom are known to members of Parliament to tell it that this Labour Party pledge card—[ 
Interruption 
] On what date? 
Anne Tolley 
: 2 September. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: On 2 September David Henry the Chief Electoral Officer wrote to the Labour Party to make it absolutely clear that the Labour Party pledge card regardless of whether it was paid for by taxpayers or by the Labour Party itself would have to be declared an election expense. Within days the general secretary of the Labour Party replied to say yes the party would be incorporating it in its election expenses. But come the election that was found to be a complete lie. The Labour Party did not declare the pledge card in its election expenses for this very reason: the cost put the Labour Party $800000 over the limit it was allowed to spend in the run-up to the last election. Labour spent that sum using taxpayers’ money and Labour was forced to pay it back by the people of New Zealand and by the National Party in Opposition. 
What this bill does is this. Right now the red printing rollers are running at the Labour Party headquarters producing material like these pamphlets I am holding which are being stuck into every letterbox in New Zealand. Right now outside an election period it is perfectly legitimate for the Labour Party to spend money on this material provided the party does not ask people specifically to vote for it. But under the old rules that existed before this law was changed—which Labour has removed but now wants to ingrain opposition on and ignore the law—this material sent out in the 3 months before the election would have counted as an election expense. Every one of these pieces of paper with bright red Labour livery Labour logo and Labour slogan would have counted as an election expense under the old rules if they had been put out in the 3-month pre-election period. That is what the Auditor-General said and that is what Parliament understood the rules to be. 
What will happen now is that all of this material will be able to be sent out even in the week before the election and there is an immunity provision in this bill and in the Electoral Finance Bill that says that because the material is being sent out by members of Parliament it will not count as an election expense. Why is that unfair? It is because that privilege will not apply to any person other than a member of Parliament. So those people who are standing for New Zealand First for the Greens and in other electorates are faced with the restriction that applies to everybody else except members of Parliament. That is wrong—that is wrong. Members of Parliament should not be privileging themselves from the requirements of the electoral law by as in this bill legitimising the use of public money for this sort of purpose in the election period. 
It would be simply outrageous to think that in the week before the election the Labour Party could put out brochures saying: “Healthy wealthy wise” “What we are doing for KiwiSaver” or “What we are doing for free education” and try to convince the public that that is not electioneering. It cannot put out that material in the week of the election and say that it is not electioneering; even Sue Moroney would not fall for that. If Labour puts out this material right now that is fine—that is within the rules and that is informing the public. But if Labour puts it out in the week before an election then that is not right. It is not right; it is taxpayers’ money being abused.