Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : I am pleased to participate in this debate, because I think it is important to alert the people of New Zealand who are listening this afternoon to the fact that this bill is an abomination. It is part of the campaign of democracy under attack, which the New Zealand Labour Party has talked about this week. It is part of this Government’s plan to rort the electoral system and remove all the restrictions on parliamentary money being used to pay for campaign purposes.

This bill, in concert with the Electoral Finance Bill, allows the Labour Party to rort the taxpayer yet again, to fund its election campaign. This bill is all about changing the rules to suit the Labour Party. The old rules were clear. If parliamentary money is used to pay for something that is considered to be electioneering in the run-up to the election campaign, in the 3 months before the election, then it is caught as an election expense. It is absolutely clear. If parliamentary money is used to pay for election activity in the run-up to the election, in that 3-month period, then it is caught.

That is what the Auditor-General found, and it is what the Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party about. So what will this bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill, allow? Instead of restricting, in the 3 months before the election, how much parliamentary money can be used to contribute to the election of a political party through advertising, there will be no restriction through the whole of next year on what parties can spend.

Members should look at some of the stuff that this bill will allow to be spent on in the run-up to the election. The brochure entitled Labour MPs: Women Report talks about all the great things that the Labour Party is doing for women around New Zealand and about what people can do to get more information. talks about all the things that Labour will do for people, and about how Labour can make sure that those people get help and that their families can get ahead. What about the brochure ? This brochure would not be illegal if it was not done during the election period. But under very clear rules that this bill changes, this brochure will no longer be considered electioneering if it is put out in the 3 months before the election.

What about this brochure entitled Supporting Kiwi Business? Here is another flyer from the Labour Party. It was put out 3 months before the election. It used to be caught as an election expense; now it will not be caught as an election expense, because of this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. —

Hon Member: Who’s that?

Hon TONY RYALL: This is a deceitful document because it has a deceitful photo on it that bears no real resemblance to the person purporting to be pictured in this document. If this document, which talks about enhanced KiwiSaver, is put out now, it will not be an election expense, but if it is put out in proximity to the election, then it is an election expense under the old rules and has to be counted in the spending limit. But, with this bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill, Labour is saying that the document is no longer an election expense.

Here is another red Labour Party flyer. There is a huge printing press in Wellington, smothered in red ink, that is pumping out this material every week. This flyer, under the old rules, would have been an election expense and declared in the 3 months before the election. The Government is now saying that the restrictions for everybody else apply for the whole of next year, but Labour will be able to put out this flyer because these rules no longer apply to MPs.

What about the pamphlet Healthy, Wealthy and Wise? It is another brochure telling people how great the Labour Party is. Under the old rules, if this pamphlet was put out in the 3 months before the election, it would be electioneering. It is absolutely clear. It would have to be counted in the $2.4 million that Labour is allowed to spend. But now, under this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill, this pamphlet is no longer an election expense.

Here is another Labour Party taxpayer-funded card—again with a picture on it of someone purporting to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand but bearing no physical resemblance to the woman I have to look at across the Chamber 3 days a week. She is with another chap, the Minister for Ethnic Affairs—“Mr PC”—and the Minister of Education. He was handing out these cards at a Chinese New Year function in Wellington. The card states: “The Labour Party places great value on its relationship with the Chinese community in New Zealand.” If that card had been put out in the previous election period, 3 months before the election, it would have counted as an election expense. These cards were personally handed out by the Minister for Ethnic Affairs at a Chinese New Year function. But now, under this bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill, there is no restriction on Labour’s ability to do this.

Here we are, this is the mother of them all: “My Commitment to You”. This pledge card, together with this brochure, paid for by the taxpayers at the last election, is an election expense and, in fact, was an illegal use of taxpayers’ money at the last election. The Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer both told the Labour Party that this pledge card would have to be included as an election expense. But this bill legitimises the spending of that money on another parliamentary card.

Had “My Commitment to You”, which was written with the use of New Zealand taxpayers’ money, been put out at any other time, it probably would not be a matter of dispute. But put out in the 3 months before the election, in the regulated period, it became not only illegal spending but also election spending. It had to be counted in Labour’s $2.4 million spending limit. But under this bill, “”, Labour’s pledge card, is now legalised. Labour is now legalising the spending of $800,000 on more Labour Party propaganda, paid for by the taxpayers, that is allowed to be distributed within days of the election. That is now legal and it will not count as an election expense.

So let us talk about it. If this stuff were sent out today, it would not be an election expense. But if it had been sent out 2 years ago, it would have been an election expense, because the old rules said to the Labour Party that if it used the taxpayers’ money to try to get votes and to encourage people to support a party, the material would be caught as an election expense. That is what the Auditor-General said; that is what the Chief Electoral Officer said. But now Labour is changing the law. Labour says that the pledge card will now be able to be delivered within days of the election, because the Government is changing the law to state that whatever MPs spend their money on in the run-up to the election, it will not be an election expense.

That is what this bill states, together with the Electoral Finance Bill—whatever MPs spend of their parliamentary money in the run-up to the election, it will not be an election expense. That means that everybody else in New Zealand will have to honour election spending limits, except members of Parliament. So why are members of Parliament to be above the rules that everybody else is under? That is what all this material from Labour’s last election that I am holding up means; it all represents parliamentary-spent money designed to win votes for the Government.

This material at any other time than an election period is allowed. But it is clear that under the old rules, if it had been sent out during the election period of 3 months it would have had to count as election spending, and there would have been serious concerns about its being spent at the taxpayers’ expense. The Labour Party knows it, and that is why there is not a pip or a squeak from the shallow people opposite about it. They know that the plan is to allow the red printing press to roll on completely uncontrolled during the months before the election.

This pledge card was illegal last election; under this bill, the pledge card will no longer be illegal. There will be no need for the Labour Party to refund the cost of this card next election, because this bill will make it legal. It puts in separate rules for members of Parliament. Let me just repeat that: the material sent out in the last election would have counted as election expenses. We know that, because that is what the Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer said. But this material, sent out with taxpayers’ money at the last election, is to be counted no more because of this rort of a bill.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : That was quite a poor and pathetic attempt at moral outrage. Some people in the National Party do moral outrage well. Maurice Williamson does moral outrage really, really well. Bill English actually does it quite well. But the squeak from that member, which was like being savaged by a wet bus ticket, is a very, very poor excuse for moral outrage and indignation.

Let us have a look at what the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill actually does; after hearing that rant, no one would be any the wiser. At the moment there is funding from the Parliamentary Service that members of Parliament can spend. It covers all sorts of things—for example, the funding of members’ electorate offices. The issue we have at the moment is that the legislative framework around the way in which that money is allocated and spent expires shortly, and, unless we pass this legislation, all of that money could be frozen. So we are extending that expiry date to June 2009, so that people can get together in Parliament and come up with some rules that everybody agrees on. The National Party originally thought that that was a good idea, but now it has backed off and tried to bring together this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill, when, in fact, they are quite separate.

Mr Ryall said there is no restriction. Of course, clause 3(2) defines what “electioneering” is: “ ‘electioneering’ means any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote … or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party … or (d) solicits subscriptions or other financial support.” To say that there are no restrictions around this is just absolute garbage, which is why the member, although he tried to wind himself up, could not get himself to that point— because he knew he was not quoting what was in the legislation.

Then he did moral outrage about the Labour Party’s spending. Well, is not this interesting? I have a pamphlet here that was put out recently. It is from Nick Smith, MP for Nelson. It is a survey and newsletter. It talks about why we need a new Government and what Nick is doing in Nelson. It asks people to give their views on National’s view on taxes. I wonder who paid for this pamphlet. I wonder whether it was paid for by the good Nelson National Party members from the proceeds of cake stalls and doily sales. I wonder whether the National Party funded it. “Oh no!”, I hear; it did not fund it. The good hard-working National folk of Nelson did not fund it; it was the good old taxpayer—oh yes. It was, I think, just a month or so ago.

What is the little secret that tells me that this pamphlet was probably funded by the taxpayer? Well, it is called the parliamentary crest. That is one of the things that need to happen now. If we spend money on communications to our electorates, we need the parliamentary crest printed on them. So I ask the National Party who paid for this pamphlet. Did the Parliamentary Service pay for this?

Anne Tolley: Who cares?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: We have just had moral outrage from National Party members, going on about the Labour Party putting out documents explaining policy, but when it comes to National’s publications, they ask “Who cares?”—“Who cares?”, they say. Well, members over there cannot criticise the Labour Party for putting out information to electorates, then say there is nothing wrong with Nick Smith doing it. You see, this is the problem—the inconsistency of the National Party. So the moral indignation falls flat.

Well, this pamphlet was paid for by the Parliamentary Service; it was paid for by the taxpayer. I say to the National Party, in answer to the question it asked last week, that this bill legitimises the spending that the National Party gets now from the Parliamentary Service.

So if those members oppose this legislation today, I ask whether they will make a commitment. Will the next person stand up and say that they are opposed to this bill, that they will spend not one cent of the money from the Parliamentary Service, and that they will not put out more pamphlets like that? Will they say that? Will they give that commitment now? Will the National Party, if it votes against this legislation now, agree never to put out anything like that pamphlet from now on?

Christopher Finlayson: We play by the rules.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Oh, I see; we cannot get a “No”. So they are going to vote against this legislation, then carry on putting out leaflets like that one. There is a word for that, Madam Chair, and you know, members know, and I know—everybody here knows—that we are not allowed to say it. We are probably not allowed even to intimate what that word is. I do not think we are allowed even to say that it begins with “h”. But it certainly is a word that should not be accepted in this Chamber.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Unlike the previous member, I am going to speak to clause 1, which is the title clause. I understand the title to be “Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill”.

Well, the use of the word “Interim” is a joke, because last year we were told that the last legislation was going to be interim, but the Government is simply rolling it over, and this bill will expire on 30 June 2009. Of course, the Labour Government will be gone by then, and the legislation would have been repealed long before then. But, in the unlikely event that the Government is still there, the legislation will be rolled over again. The legislation should be called “Authorisation of Next Year’s Pledge Card Bill”, to be read in conjunction with the Electoral Finance Bill, or perhaps, even more appropriately, not the interim but the permanent “Do as I Say but Don’t Do as I Do Bill”—that is a feature of Labour. That is exactly what this legislation is about, when we read it in conjunction with the odious Electoral Finance Bill. Why do I say that it is a matter of “Do as I say, don’t do as I do.”? Because it is a feature of this Labour Government. It lays down rules for other people and, boy, does it lay down rules! But when it comes to applying those rules to itself, it evades them.

I want to take members through a series of correspondence that highlights so very well that dreadful feature of this ghastly crowd. I will start with a file note of a conversation that the Chief Electoral Officer had with Mr Mike Smith, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, on 30 August 2005, about the brochure that had gone out entitled “My Commitment to You”. The officer asked why it had not been properly authorised, and Mr Smith said that it had been paid for by the Parliamentary Service, and, therefore, did not require an authorisation.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Madam Chairperson—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You don’t have to take it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly will take the remainder of my time, because I am very interested in clause 1, which, as I said before the dinner break, describes this legislation as ”Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill”, and I said that we could describe it more accurately as either the “Authorisation of Next Year’s Pledge Card Bill”, to be read in conjunction with the Electoral Finance Bill, or, more appropriately, given the sort of Government we are dealing with, the “Electoral Do as I Say but Don’t Do as I Do Bill”.

I was seeking to prove my point about the title of the bill by referring to some correspondence entered into between the Chief Electoral Officer and the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr Mike Smith in 2005. This correspondence clearly illustrates the point that it is “Do as I say but don’t do as I do.”, because it dealt with the brochures that Mr Ryall held up, entitled: “My Commitment to You” and , setting out Labour’s empty promises. I said that on 30 August 2005 the Chief Electoral Officer had communicated by telephone with Mr Smith, and that on 2 September, as he had foreshadowed, he wrote to Mr Smith expressing the concerns of the Chief Electoral Office about the distribution to households throughout New Zealand of “, which is, in fact, the pledge card. Mr Smith wrote back to David Henry—in a letter dated 6 September 2005—that the brochure and the card referred to had been produced by the office of the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party, and it was parliamentary funding that was an issue here.

On 12 September—just a few days before the general election was held on 17 September—the Chief Electoral Officer again wrote about “My Commitment to You” and the brochure entitled . Mr Smith responded in a letter dated 14 September 2005. At the end of the letter he told the Chief Electoral Officer that if he was really so concerned about it, “then I would be happy to include the cost of the material in the return furnished by the New Zealand Labour Party.”, and that is the point. He said that he would be prepared to include that in the cost of the material in the return to be furnished by the Labour Party. But on 5 October, just a few days after the election, he wrote back to Mr Henry, and said: “I have now had the opportunity to reconsider the matter and I wish to advise that I withdraw my offer to have the amount expended on the material in question counted as an election expense, since I do not believe that it is properly accountable as such.” In other words: “The election is over. All previous bets are off. We won. You lost. Eat that!”.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have had only two speakers on this part. It seems very unreasonable to be putting the vote at this point, after two speakers to this part of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The part that we are considering is clause 1, “Title”. There is plenty of time for debate on the other clauses, which most people will be speaking on, anyway.

Christopher Finlayson: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry. The closure is not debated.

Christopher Finlayson: I have not even finished expanding on Mike Smith’s lying letter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, the member started off talking about the title. The point is there is plenty of opportunity to talk on those matters as we come to them, but we were debating the title.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : Well, that is interesting, is it not? Here we are in this Committee debating a bill that is due to come into effect before Christmas, before the end of the year, and the Labour Government is shutting down the debate on it. We are not even allowed to debate it in this Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The decision about how long a debate goes on is the Chairperson’s decision. If the member wishes to criticise the Chairperson, there is a proper process for doing so.

ANNE TOLLEY: Madam Chairperson, Government members opposite moved the closure motion, and the debate on clause 1 was closed based on a vote. At no stage did I intend to criticise your decision. I was criticising the Government for moving a closure motion to shut down debate on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): OK; I accept that.

ANNE TOLLEY: This bill is due to come into force on 1 January next year. I want to make the point I made when this bill was introduced: the Government has had the whole year to negotiate this bill. As insidious as the National Party found the whole bill in essence, we were prepared to talk about the processes around moving forward, understanding that this validation bill would lapse at the end of this calendar year. However, the Government has made no attempt to set up sensible, reasonable, cross-party negotiations. The first time the matter was raised with the National Party was in September. So the previous Minister of Justice was sitting on this piece of legislation, knowing that it was going to expire at the end of the calendar year. It has been discussed at the Parliamentary Service Commission as expiring at the end of the year. Everyone has been aware that the legislation was due to expire, but the Government and the previous Minister of Justice have done nothing—absolutely nothing—until it was so late in the piece, the end of September, when negotiations were started.

Now we are faced with 3 or 4 weeks of sittings of the House in which to rush a bill like this through. We cannot even fully debate it in this Committee without having closure motions moved by the Government after only a couple of speakers. That is outrageous; that is an assault on democracy.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The speaker on her feet is asserting that she is not allowed to debate this bill although she is clearly on her feet debating the bill.

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s not a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We will have just one warning on this; when I am trying to rule on a point of order there will be silence. It is not a point of order.

ANNE TOLLEY: So we are now in the position of having to debate this bill under extreme provocation and extreme circumstances, because it is time limited. There is no opportunity for us to discuss alternatives to this insidious bill.

We are told that if this bill does not commence on 1 January next year, we will have no rules under which to operate. That is absolutely absurd. This Parliament had perfectly good rules. We do not need this bill. We could quite easily see this legislation lapse and go back to the old rules that were in force prior to this backward, retrospective, validating legislation, and if everyone abided by those rules there would be no problems. We have worked hard this year to clarify the rules so that everyone understood them. We could start on 1 January, when this new legislation is due to come into effect, and as long as everyone abided by the rules there would be no prosecutions or problems. We could all carry on under the rules that Parliament lived under, in reasonable circumstances, for a number of elections.

We are now faced with this legislation that will legitimise and legalise behaviour that was against the existing rules. There is no need for this legislation to come into effect from 1 January next year and to run for another 18 months. The existing rules were perfectly adequate. If people had abided by those rules, then the Auditor-General would not have found in the way he did, and we would not be in the situation we are in today whereby the Labour Party is trying to rort the rules.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I do not know whether members have read the latest Listener editorial but there are four words in that editorial that sum up this bill wonderfully. Those four words are “the public deserve better”. It is an absolute disgrace to the democracy of our country that we have a law that has been introduced under urgency that follows another law that was introduced under urgency—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s not under urgency.

KATE WILKINSON: We all know that the previous bill was supplied to the Opposition 2 hours before it was supposed to be debated in the House. We now have the same tricks again and the public deserve better. The public deserve to have some confidence in the democracy of our country and in our Parliament. The public deserve better.

All that can be said about this law is that it is one law for MPs. This bill should not have a commencement date at all. It should not be necessary to introduce this bill. If this Government had done what it said it would do last time, this bill would have quietly lapsed. As the Minister of Finance said last time: “There is a sunset date. It will expire at the end of next year. That has been done because we had to respond to the need for a broader review of the rules.” We have not had a broader review of the rules, and this is not it.

The reason we are back in this Chamber debating this invidious legislation is that the Government did not do what it said it had to do. We all know and we should all appreciate the absolute importance of electoral law in our country, and the importance of electoral law having at least some form of consensus in the House if it is to be at all enduring. This bill does not have consensus. It is an absolute disgrace. We would not need a commencement date for yet another roll-over piece of legislation if the Minister had actually done something about it before now—if he had made an effort to sit down with the other parties to work through the issues and produce a generally consensual and therefore enduring electoral law. He has failed.

We would not need a commencement date if, for example, such rules that needed clarification were so clarified in the other invidious piece of legislation joined at the hip to this one—namely, the Electoral Finance Bill. One cannot treat one bill without the other. But here we are today with yet another commencement date for yet another invidious bill that is a disgrace, because Labour was caught cheating. The Labour Government was caught cheating. It knew the rules, it broke the rules, and then it validated its own illegal actions. Yet here we are today with some interim measures, some continuation of definitions, and some new commencement date for substantially the same definition, knowing that, in the words of the Minister of Finance: “The House will still have to come back to permanent long-term rules in 2009.”

We do not need a commencement date for a disgraceful bill that provides, with its twin the Electoral Finance Bill, that there will now be one rule for politicians and one rule for everyone else. We do not need a commencement date for a shameful piece of legislation that says that politicians will be able to do almost anything when it comes to political advertising but that the public will be able to do almost nothing. It says that we will make it harder for ordinary private citizens to have freedom of expression, which restricts public advocacy and is a dramatic assault on human rights. But it states that we will relax the rules for incumbent members of Parliament, especially Government ones, and that is shameful.

We do not need a commencement date for an invidious piece of legislation because the Labour Party issued a pledge card it should not have issued and because of the Labour Party’s utter, utter disregard for electoral law and for ordinary, normal democratic principles. The Listener editorial is quite intriguing. It states that MPs will be covered by the “One Law for MPs Bill”, which allows them to campaign next year, right up to the day before the election, using the generous taxpayer-funded allowances given to each party represented in Parliament, and that, what is more, this spending will not be counted as part of each MP’s individual spending cap.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Kate Wilkinson has been here only a relatively short time and I have to say that I have a degree of respect for her because she is a frank-talking lawyer—an industrial lawyer, I think. But, my goodness! I have to say that she read that speech beautifully but I do not know who the hell wrote it, because it is wrong—absolutely, totally wrong.

We learnt today at the Parliamentary Service Commission, from Rodney Hide, that the National Party approached him—a chap called—

Anne Tolley: He lied.

PETER BROWN: Is the National whip going to deny this?

Anne Tolley: Yes.

PETER BROWN: This is what Rodney Hide told the Parliamentary Service Commission. He said that Wayne Eagleson—who the hell is Wayne Eagleson—on behalf of the National Party came to Rodney Hide and said “The best way to handle this issue is to roll it over.”

Anne Tolley: He didn’t say that.

PETER BROWN: Yes, he did.

Anne Tolley: He did not.

PETER BROWN: He did, and I took particular note.

Anne Tolley: I know you did.

PETER BROWN: Did the member see me writing it down?

Anne Tolley: Yes, I did.

PETER BROWN: Did she?

Anne Tolley: Yes, I did.

PETER BROWN: No, the note was in my brain. National members make one noise here in this Chamber to the public, and another noise behind the scenes. They know we have to have rules and we have to have legislation to govern the activities of MPs. Kate Wilkinson knows this because I have worked with her on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know that she is a sound-thinking person. I do not agree with her politics but I know she is a sound-thinking person. She knows that we have to have rules governing what MPs can or cannot do when it comes to an election. That is what—

Bob Clarkson: You didn’t do that at the last election.

PETER BROWN: Goodness me, Bob Clarkson is actually speaking in this Chamber. He is not asleep in the lobby. He is actually here speaking. Goodness me!

Barbara Stewart: He hasn’t taken a call though.

PETER BROWN: He has not taken call—will the member over there take a call? Will Mr Clarkson take the next call? I would welcome him taking the call. Goodness me!

Hon Tony Ryall: Will New Zealand First pay the money back to the Western Bay Finance depositors?

PETER BROWN: Will I pay the money back? Mr Clarkson will find out in due course what we are going to do with the money, but I can tell the member that New Zealand First stuck to the rules, and we will stick to these rules. We did not employ international consultants to work out what we should do in the campaign because we thought it was going to be a July election, as those guys did, and then use taxpayers’ money to produce the hoardings before the event. We did not do that. We stuck to the rules, and we had this brochure checked off by Parliamentary Service. Parliamentary Service will tell the members that. We also had it checked off by the Electoral Commission, and the commission will tell the members that.

This commencement date is the right date. We have got to roll over this bill, it is absolutely essential we roll over this bill. Members can see the discourse that National is in. The National members do not even agree with one another so it is essential we roll over this bill, and to a time that takes it beyond the next election to take the heat out of the situation.

This bill has three pages. It is very straightforward, it simply says what an MP can or cannot do in terms of doing his or her job as an MP. One would expect the criteria governing what an MP can or cannot do to be different from those of a candidate. It is ridiculous of Kate Wilkinson to put candidates and MPs in the same barrow. It is absolutely ridiculous. She knows it now that she is an MP, or she will find out if she does not already know. I know she knows it. It is a different kettle of fish being here representing people, from being a candidate trying to be a person here representing people. MPs have got to be allowed to do their job and do their job effectively.

Colin King: What are you talking about?

PETER BROWN: Those guys over there clearly do not know what an MP’s job is. It is not to sit here, make noise, and oppose everything that comes up under the sun. Members are here to make constructive criticism.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : The designers of this bill, the people who want it rolled over, should reflect on the opportunities it offers because of the structure of the finances it covers, and the manner in which those finances are issued, dispensed, and ultimately accounted for, because I foresee a problem. Just as I hear Mr Brown occasionally talking about his marine experience, I have had a bit of experience in marketing, sales, and negotiation, and I sense there is a real problem with this particular bill. I would honestly encourage those who are saying “Yes, we’ve got to have it. Yes, it’s necessary.”, to think about what it might cause, because I do not think this legislation has been thought through at all so I am very, very pleased to be speaking against it.

Prior to preparing my notes to speak on this bill I carefully read the speeches that were given at the time of the first reading. I have heard people speaking about it during question time and I am definitely left thinking that if this were a sales opportunity, someone is trying to sell me a pup with this bill. In many ways it is a classic example of what happens when a Government is as blindly regulation-driven as this one. One has only to look at the way the bill is being introduced, and at the aspects we are discussing at the moment. Every day one hears of yet another instance of rigorous regulation being imposed on the lives of Kiwis. People are actually getting sick of it, but Labour sycophants are loving it.

The self-perpetuating cycle of regulation goes something like this. Ministers will be judged to be efficient by their commitment to regulatory political correctness. One has only to analyse and assess the recent promotions in the soft-shoe shuffle to see this being borne out. The cycle continues—as each clings to regulation for self-justification and as shortcomings become evident, then the solution is more regulation. Then if one has no fresh regulation, one rolls it over—rolls over what one had before. That is why we are going to see a perpetuation of what occurred before, but this time it will be legal.

In respect of this particular bill there are differences. We are not just rolling over, as I have been told, the same legislation that we had before, because the situation has changed. There is a scissor action occurring interacting between this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. On the one hand in the appropriation legislation parliamentary funding can be spent on soft election advertising, then the other scissor blade comes in with the proposed Electoral Finance Bill, and MPs’ spending on soft election advertising does not count towards a party’s or a candidate’s election spending cap. The scissor action effectively cuts a line between existing members and new candidates, especially—and I refer to the previous speaker—new candidates with names that are difficult to pronounce. If it is being suggested that I will find it a little harder to get my name known as a list MP than I would as a candidate, I have news for that member.

Other members have spoken at length on the inequity that this bill will create. But if I may, I would like to sound a different note of caution. The note of caution is expressed towards those who have been so enthusiastic for it. If the bill goes forward as it is, it will not be long before it has to be changed again, because I suggest it is being used for a purpose it is not designed for, for a situation that no longer is there, and it will create opportunities to bring about the very things it is supposed to prevent. We heard earlier from my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall, who illustrated some of the things we have seen in the past—the bright red print process is what we call it. It produces information such as that written here: “You are better off with Labour.”

Kate Wilkinson: Propaganda! Pure propaganda!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is pure propaganda, but it will be called “information”. In a normal election year, as one progresses towards election time, and as the campaigns begin—

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : There are a small number of amendments in my name that I have been moved to put forward because I am concerned that the Government was taking closure motions on this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill after only two speeches from the Opposition. I tell the Government members that if they want to be voting on every date in 2008 and 2009, then Ms Moroney should go ahead and cut this debate short. She will prove what a great junior Labour whip she is when she has the Committee voting for 2½ hours on amendments.

If this Opposition does not get the chance to have a say, that is exactly what this Committee will be doing, because we will not allow the rights of the minority in this Committee to be stampeded across by a party that in this bill will favour the red printing press, such as we have never seen before. The amendments that I have for this Committee—[Interruption] She is such a great junior Labour whip that it will be really well received in the Beehive when it is found out that because of her move to concertina two Opposition speakers on the bill we will all be a voting on amendments.

I put forward these amendments because I do not think this bill should come into effect this year. I do not think it should come into effect until some time later, so I have put forward amendments that will have this bill coming in at a later date, because it will give a future Parliament the opportunity to deal with this sort of law in the way that it should.

Like the Electoral Finance Bill, these pieces of legislation should be dealt with on a multiparty basis of consensus across the House. We simply cannot have the law that applies to parliamentary spending and the election changing every election depending on who the winner is. That is the thing that has forced this House for generations to come together on rules that all the parties—certainly the main parties—can agree on. Parties realise that what goes around comes around and that what is done by the Government to the Opposition invites that Opposition, when it becomes the Government, to do to the Opposition what it is doing to the Opposition now. That is the reason why we have always had an approach of bipartisan agreement under the old system, and multiparty agreement under the new system, to the rules of election spending and the rules of election finance.

That is why we have moved amendments to get this bill debated in a better culture where there can be multiparty agreement and all the parties come together. It is not good for democracy that the rules around parliamentary spending and elections change depending on who the victor in the election is. That is what happens in South America. That is what happens behind the Iron Curtain. That is what happens in corrupt banana republics. Whoever the winner is, they change the electoral law to suit them, and that is what is being proposed here.

At the last election, under the old rules, it was illegal to spend money on materials like those I am holding—which are, no doubt, designed to promote, as they do, the Labour Party—in the period of the election, and they had to be counted as election spending if they were produced. Under what is being proposed in this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill, these brochures promoting the Labour Party and its candidates can go out in the days before the election and they will not be counted as election spending.

This bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill, provides immunity from coverage for parties and members of Parliament because of their work as members of Parliament. At the last election these materials I am holding and the credit card were found to be election expenses and costly, and they had to be declared. But what has happened? This bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill, says that all this bright red election material, paid for by the taxpayers, will become perfectly legitimate in the election campaign period. If these things go out now and they are within the rules, they are not counted as election activity. They are counted as informational.

Peter Brown: What do they say?

Hon TONY RYALL: They say that Helen Clark is doing a great job and to vote for her. That is what they try to say. They say they are delivering more for families.

Hon Bill English: What do they say about Trevor Mallard? More punch for your dollar.

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. They say: “More punch for your dollar.” That is what he is saying in this material. This material going out now is not an election expense, but it is during the election period.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to take a call on the commencement clause in what is a very important bill. I point out to the member who has just resumed his seat that when he was in Government and was making the rules, he felt that it was perfectly fine to pass the Electoral Act of 1993 that governed how parliamentarians can spend their money as MPs to communicate with their constituents. When he was in Government he thought it was fine to be able to do the kinds of things that we have all been talking about doing here tonight; he thought that was fine. He did not have a problem. In fact, he was a Cabinet Minister in the National Government that passed the very laws we are affirming here today.

I also want to point out that what we are doing here today is exactly what the National Party wanted to do in the cross-party talks that occurred. It is exactly what National members wanted to happen, until they saw a cynical and dishonest political advantage in trying to pretend that this was not the position they had taken the whole time. I have been sitting here listening to this debate. I say to the National members that they are not doing themselves any favours over this. It was fine for Bill English and Tony Ryall to stand up in this House and pass an electoral Act that allowed exactly what we are doing today and exactly what the members of this Parliament thought was the law, until the Auditor-General’s report. Many of us disagreed with that report but we accepted it and we paid the money back. As we know, just like that forward pass in a certain rugby game between the All Blacks and the French, one does not always agree with the referee but one accepts the decision and moves on.

We are debating a commencement date for something that simply continues what we have always understood to be the case since National passed the law in 1993. Those members stand up now and try to take the high ground, as they always do, from a base completely lacking in any moral conviction. They use much of their funding to close electorate offices so they can spend more money on pamphlets about themselves. I suspect that next year—

Anne Tolley: Ha, ha!

MOANA MACKEY: Anne Tolley can laugh. There were four electorate offices in the East Coast electorate under Labour; there are now two under National. But they are so cynical, that I suggest we may see some opening next year in the East Coast electorate. Maybe we will see that, as the National Party members decide they will try to take the moral high ground and say they are not spending any more money on promoting themselves but are instead opening electorate offices. I say that the public of New Zealand are far more savvy than that. They can see through it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Look at your brochures.

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Mr Ryall that he was quite happy to put out pamphlets when he was in Government—he was quite happy to put them out before the last election—and I just say that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

I will be watching with interest the next election campaign. That party over there has $7 million to spend. For every single pamphlet that goes out with the parliamentary crest on, we will be telling the people of New Zealand: “This is the National Party that stood up and said this money should not be spent.” We will tell the public that it is the same National Party that stood up and accused other parties in this House of being corrupt for doing exactly what we have always understood the law to be, and it is exactly what they have always understood the law to be, and they are still happy to spend that money. There is a word for that and we are not allowed to use it in this House, but the people of New Zealand know it. Mr Ryall is telling them all to be quiet now and to hush down, because he knows they are on shaky ground.

For every pamphlet that goes out next year with the parliamentary crest on it, we will be saying to the National Party members: “Where are your standards now? Where are your high morals?”. We will remind them that they stood up in the House and called other parties corrupt for using parliamentary spending in the way we had always assumed we were allowed to. We are simply carrying this over until we can get some kind of cross-party agreement on how the rules should be set after the Auditor-General’s report. The National Party backed out of those talks when Labour said it would do exactly what National was asking for. When we said we would extend the provisions and do exactly what National had been asking for, National backed out and said it would play political games on this issue. I say that that is not good enough.

I say to the National members that they can bleat on all they want but we will be watching during the next election campaign. We will be watching that party, which passed the very law we are now affirming in this House, for every dollar of taxpayers’ funding that its members spend, after they stood up in this House and said they believed this measure to be corrupt. So I say good luck to the National members in the next campaign, because they will need it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : My colleague tells me that Labour is 23 percent behind in the East Coast electorate. I would advise the Labour candidate to stay away from that electorate, because a Labour Party candidate wandering around the East Coast having to answer questions about the use of taxpayers’ money in the last election will be getting no votes whatsoever.

We need to remind the Committee of just why we are here. This bill does not need a commencement date, because Parliament does not need this legislation. The only reason it is here is that Labour broke the rules in the 2005 election, after it had been told by the Auditor-General what the rules were.

Before the election the Auditor-General said: “Remember there is a 3-month period, and in that period of time the rules are tight and you should be very careful.” During the 3-month period, after the Auditor-General had told the Labour Party—and everybody—to be careful, Labour was told the same thing by the Chief Electoral Officer during the election period. In fact, it was only about a month out from the election. The Labour Party wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer and said: “Yes, the pledge card is electioneering.” Labour members agreed, and they said they would count it in their expenses. That was not the National Party rabble opposition, and it was not the nasty, smearing Auditor-General; it was the secretary of the Labour Party. That is who it was. I do not think the Labour MPs knew that. Labour put down on paper that, yes, it accepted that the pledge card was electioneering. By definition, that means that Labour accepted that it broke the rules. The public knows Labour broke the rules, because it paid back the money. Have members ever seen Helen Clark admit she is wrong about anything? No, except for the pledge card, when Labour paid back the money.

But, of course, as the member said, Labour still does not accept that it can do anything wrong. Once Labour had paid back the money it then wanted to cover it up by saying that everyone broke the rules, and that the Auditor-General is so silly that it has to pass legislation to validate MPs paying for the lighting in their office and putting ads in the paper for constituent clinics. That is why Labour passed this law. It said that if it got caught out, the Auditor-General must be stupid and the rules must be wrong, so we have to validate everything that MPs have ever done. That is the sort of standard of morality that Labour has set. Labour members believe they are the only people who can validate everything that MPs have ever done.

That is the legislation that expires on 30 December, which is why this bill is here with a 1 January commencement date. It should not have a commencement date. The bill is here only because Dr Cullen was piqued that he got caught out. He was angry and frustrated, so he made Parliament pass a law to prove that Labour was right. That is what this bill is all about—to try to prove that Labour was right.

We do not need the bill. As the previous speaker said, the rules have not changed since before 1993—in fact, since about 1989. The rules are the same. The only thing that ever happened was that Labour broke them. Egregiously and deliberately, Labour exceeded the expenditure limit for the election by $600,000 or $700,000. It has never been done before. The way to make sure that rules count is to enforce them. Unfortunately, after the last election, the rules were not enforced when they should have been enforced—on everyone. Other parties broke the rules to a minor extent. The rules should have been enforced. That is what this bill is here for.

I invite the member for the East Coast to wander round the countryside looking for voters for Labour and to tell them that Labour is passing legislation that means that MPs can spend what they like, right up to election day, but the candidate who is running against her cannot.

The member for the Tainui Māori seat is over there. The Māori Party candidate standing against her will be limited to $20,000 for election year, but Nanaia Mahuta will have the ability to spend about $80,000—all of it public money. The Māori Party candidate will have to go and raise the $20,000 with cake stalls and raffle tickets. Nanaia Mahuta will get $80,000 handed to her. That is Labour’s definition of a fair go. In fact, Labour thinks that money given to someone is better if it is public money.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the commencement date of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, which is 1 January 2008. Let the Government on the other side of the Chamber understand one thing about that date and about this commencement clause: the people of New Zealand will respect the effort being put up by this side of the Chamber to expose that date and this legislation for exactly what it is.

Chris Auchinvole: What is it?

ALLAN PEACHEY: It is a disgrace. It is a further insidious socialist attack on the way of democracy of this country. That is what it is. The commencement date in this bill is necessary only because that Government over there—that party over there—acted against the rules that existed at the time. The Labour members will not accept that. They will not front up to that. They would rather play around with our system of democracy.

Chris Auchinvole: In denial.

ALLAN PEACHEY: They are in total denial.

On the commencement date of this bill, New Zealand will not be the New Zealand of the strong, bipartisan sense of democratic tradition that has served this country so well for so long. On that day—the first day of the new year and the commencement date of this bill—newspapers around the country will be able to repeat the headline of this Monday’s New Zealand Herald: “Democracy under threat”, because that is what the commencement date of this legislation will mean to New Zealanders.

New Zealanders are following this debate very, very closely. They understand that 1 January 2008 is actually not very far away, and they ask: “Why the rush?”. Why is the Parliament of New Zealand, with all the issues that New Zealand is facing, spending tonight debating the commencement date of this legislation, which is necessary only because the Government broke the rules? That is why this commencement date is necessary, and I suggest that New Zealand First members really think very, very carefully about their position.

The speech on the commencement date made by Peter Brown was not a good speech. Goodness knows what he was on about. He had better go away over Christmas and think about 1 January, the commencement date, and think about what ordinary New Zealanders are saying about this bill. He should have no doubt at all that ordinary New Zealanders will make their view very, very clear. Throughout New Zealand, there is a very strong sense of unease at the action that this Government and its coalition supporters are taking.

On 1 January 2008, the commencement date of this bill, New Zealanders will realise just what sort of Government they have. New Zealanders will think about the things that have been said in this Chamber during the debate on the commencement date, and they will reflect on the comments of the Hon Tony Ryall, the Hon Bill English, my fine colleague Kate Wilkinson, Chris Auchinvole, and Christopher Finlayson. They will reflect and they will be grateful and respectful because at least there was one party in this House that stood up in the defence of New Zealand’s democratic way of life.

We, the members of this House, are elected to represent the people in our constituencies and in the country. They expect this party on this side of the House to speak out against this legislation, against the commencement date in it, and against the fact that if it is passed, on 1 January 2008—it is not long away—democracy will not be the same.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am speaking on clause 2, which, as we know, is the commencement clause. Clause 2 of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, as drafted, states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

As some speakers have been suggesting, given that the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006 expires on 31 December 2007, it would make sense that if this vile legislation is to go through, the commencement date should be 1 January 2008. Putting aside the merits of the legislation for the moment and focusing—as indeed we must—on the commencement clause, we see that there is a certain symmetry in having a commencement date of 1 January 2008. I imagine that if the Electoral Finance Bill is enacted—against the interests and concerns of the National Party—the commencement date for the Electoral Finance Bill could also be 1 January 2008.

That is appropriate, because we would then have, on 1 January 2008, the enactment of this shabby legislation, the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill—which would facilitate Labour’s next pledge card and atrocious advertising we had in 2005—and, at the same time, we would have the commencement of the Electoral Finance Act, which, of course, is designed to shut down political discourse throughout election year. So there is symmetry, it seems to me, in having a commencement date of 1 January 2008.

Had it not been for the formula in clause 2—namely, that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent—another appropriate commencement date could have been today, because with the release of the report from the State Services Commission today, we have seen the undermining of the political neutrality of the Civil Service, as evidenced by that very sad report. So we have a Government that is dedicated to upholding democratic ideals, introducing legislation, to commence on 1 January, that provides the basis for the misuse of parliamentary funds. On the same day we have the Electoral Finance Act, which is designed to shut down political discourse throughout the country for one-third of the election cycle, and we have an undermining of the political neutrality of the Civil Service. When we put those three elements together—

Chris Auchinvole: What do you get?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —we see two very concerning matters, I say to Mr Auchinvole.

First, we see the overstepping of vital informal limits that were hitherto central to political contests. It was always understood that there were certain lines beyond which one did not go, and Labour does not accept that any more. Secondly, it represents a ruthless and consistent use of the power of the State to advance the interests of one party—the Labour Party—at the expense of democratic society.

Well, I say to this revolting Labour Government that it can have whatever commencement date it wants. It may by chance win a vote in the Committee tonight, but the National Party will not let it get away with it. This Government will be held to account. There will be an accounting, because this kind of legislation, which seeks to ride roughshod over fundamental democratic principles, is immoral and will be repealed, just as our leader has said. Whatever commencement date this Government applies to the electoral finance legislation, that too will be repealed, because there are limits. There are informal limits. In a society like ours, if one does not respect the informal rules, if the parties do not act according to a certain set of standards, then one leads one’s country by the shorter route to chaos.

We see the standards of the Labour Government in its seeking to have legislation to commence, as clause 2 provides, on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. We see the standards of this Labour Government evidenced in the correspondence between the general secretary of the Labour Party and the Chief Electoral Officer in September and October last year—on the one hand expressing concern, and on the other hand withdrawing it.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

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 $800,000 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 $800,000 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.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : I want to continue on from my colleague Tony Ryall, because there is a more insidious thing about this bill that has not actually come out. All this material with red on it, which I am holding here, will be perfectly legal next year under this bill, which sets up different rules for parliamentarians. If this information were put out by the Labour Party without the parliamentary crest, it would be deemed to be electioneering under the Electoral Finance Bill, and therefore it would not be allowed. That is what is so bad about this legislation, in combination with the Electoral Finance Bill that is in the Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment. It sets up one regime for parliamentarians, and this is an example of it. It will be no problem at all for parliamentarians to put out this sort of stuff next year, with a parliamentary logo on it, because it is not explicitly seeking a vote, some money, or some membership. That is what is in the bill that is in front of us tonight.

The definition of electioneering in the bill is so tight that this material is OK, but if New Zealand First or if the “Joe Brown Party”, which is not in Parliament, wanted to put out the same sort of material under their parties’ colours, that would be called electioneering. Those parties would be told how much money they could spend or could not spend, and they would be told when they could advertise. That is not democracy. That is a case of protecting the patches of current political parties and current MPs, and that is despicable. I cannot believe that a principled party like New Zealand First is supporting this rubbish. It is absolutely undemocratic. I cannot believe that a man of the integrity of Peter Brown is sitting in the Chamber supporting this legislation right through its stages in the House.

We have had some sophistry in this debate about the fact that this is one little bill that must be considered in isolation. That is wrong. We cannot consider this bill on its own. We have to look at it in concert with what is happening with the Electoral Finance Bill, which is still in the select committee. If members look at that Electoral Finance Bill as it was introduced into this House, they will see that it brings down Draconian curbs on the definition of electioneering that prescribes what everyone else can talk about.

Let us look at the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Clause 3(2) states that electioneering means “any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote for a particular political party or political parties; or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party or political parties; or (d) solicits subscriptions …”. If members go to the Electoral Finance Bill as introduced into the House, they will see that the definition of an election advertisement is quite different. A person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for one or more specified parties, for one or more candidates, or for any combination of such parties and candidates. That person has to encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies—blah-blah-blah. The third provision catches everything—any group from Greenpeace to a mothers federation that is taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated.

That is an assault on democracy. I cannot believe that Peter Brown is supporting that, and I cannot believe that his colleague Doug Woolerton is sitting in the select committee voting for the Government to bring in legislation that on the one hand says that an MP can spend what he or she likes and can produce all this sort of stuff—

Peter Brown: It doesn’t say that.

ANNE TOLLEY: It does say that. I say to Mr Brown that if he does not understand that, then I suggest he go and read the bill carefully, because that is what it says. It says those actions are OK for MPs but not for anyone else.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : Never before in the history of New Zealand have we seen such an undermining of our democracy as we have under the current regime. This is absolutely tragic for New Zealand—but guess what? Have I got news for members on the other side of the Chamber! The New Zealand public really do know about it. Here we have on the front of the Challenge Weekly: “The Electoral Finance Bill—no way”. If they understood the implication of this particular bill and what it meant in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill, they would be saying “no way” to that, too. Here we have John Boscawen, who has started a campaign and is working with Grey Power and the Sensible Sentencing Trust to take legal proceedings against the Attorney-General, and the High Court has set down an urgent hearing on 27 November for a judicial review.

Hon Member: That’s about the next bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE: It does not matter which bill it is for, whether it is the Electoral Finance Bill or whether it is for this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, it is all part of the same package; it just constantly undermines democracy. Do not forget what Harry Truman said: “Once a Government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” I have to tell members that this Government is doing exactly that. It is shutting down opposition in any which way it can.

My excellent colleague Anne Tolley has quite clearly spelt out what that means in terms of this bill that we are discussing here tonight and its relationship with the Electoral Finance Bill. If members look at the part we are talking about here in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, the key point—which was made by Anne Tolley and by Tony Ryall—is that this is about keeping the jobs going for those MPs who have the privilege of being in Parliament right now.

It makes it very difficult for people outside of Parliament to do anything about becoming representatives of the people. It stops them from being able to fully participate on an even playing field alongside those people who already have the privilege of being in Parliament. Clearly, a number of people from the Government benches just do not understand that distinction. They clearly do not understand some of the basic principles of democracy, and that is what is wrong with this current Government. That is why we have this atrocious bill that we are talking about here tonight. That is why we had the horrified questions raised about the bill from some other parties in this Parliament—namely New Zealand First, whose members clearly had a bit of trouble understanding the bill. But obviously some members from the Government benches do not want people to be able to challenge them in their seats. They like having that ultimate authority. They do not want to be challenged by anybody outside of Parliament. They want to keep their cushy numbers and their MPs’ salaries, and they are actually passing legislation so that that happens, and so they can put out all sorts of advertising blurbs.

I just wonder whether these advertisements from Labour’s last election campaign would actually get off the blocks and get approval. What do they say—apart from talking about Labour’s tax package? Hello! I wonder what Cullen thinks about that. I wonder how much of National’s policy has been incorporated into this stuff under the guise of Labour policy. These advertisements actually say that “You are better off with Labour.” Well, I tell the Committee that there will not be many people who think that when they are listening to the debate on both this bill and the Electoral Finance Bill, because the public understands the meaning of democracy. They also know the difference between flimflam and reality. They understand the difference between spin and what is real.

I have to tell the Committee that the airbrushing on this pamphlet just passes credibility. I mean, the teeth being as even as that? It is ridiculous. We all know what Helen Clark’s teeth look like, and whether they have been sharpened at the edges is a moot point. It is clear that some questions will be raised about this advertisement, because I do not know whether they can get away with saying “You are better off with Labour.” However, Labour is clearly making the most of it.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : If that member, Sandra Goudie, had half the courage of the convictions that she has attempted to demonstrate tonight, she would be proposing to the leadership of her party that John Key take down his parliamentary-funded website, which says that people should vote National. I would recommend that he take it down anyway, just because it is an obscene suggestion to make to a New Zealander. That website is funded by Parliament. The member should suggest to all of her colleagues who have put out electioneering material with the parliamentary crest on it suggesting that people vote for National, that they should not just withdraw from the debate but have the honesty to pay back that money, as well. But she will not.

Bill English issued a pledge card to the public of New Zealand under the exact same rules as we did, and funded from the exact same source. The member should say to Bill English—“Mr 23 Percent”, and going down the gurgler as he was then—that he should pay back that money. But instead she has the audacity to come into this Chamber to make accusations against Labour. We did exactly the same as National did. National did it in the first part of the year because its members thought that the election would be in July. But they got it wrong; it was in September. We know that in the 2002 election, in the 1999 election, in the 1996 election, in the 1993 election, and in the 1990 election National did exactly the same, under the same rules, with the same money, and it never paid back a cent.

As my colleague Moana Mackey said, there is a word for saying one thing in this House and doing another thing outside in public. Tragically, for some bizarre reason, we are not allowed to use that term in Parliament to demonstrate that when people say one thing in here and do another thing outside, it is immoral. That is the immorality of the National Party, and that is the immorality that that member is now standing in this Committee and accusing others of demonstrating.

I ask members to look at John Key’s website. It says “Vote National”, and it is funded by Parliamentary Service. I ask members to look at his postcards, which have the parliamentary crest on them and say “Vote National” under the exact same rules. I ask members to look at his letter to community organisations, inviting them to come to a meeting. Tragically, nobody turned up. Oh, that is not true—two people turned up, and they were both National Party members. Further, if the member had any courage or any convictions she would say to her leader that National must not take one cent of the $7 million of parliamentary funding that it is given, because to use it to communicate with members of the public is immoral, corrupt, and something that must not happen.

National members want one rule for the National Party and another rule for any other parties. Frankly, this is nonsense. We all know that a genuine attempt was made by all parties to get agreement on this issue. Gerry Brownlee, who, interestingly enough, has not been allowed to take a call in the debate tonight—extraordinary, given that he is National’s shadow Leader of the House—led the negotiations to get cross-party agreement on this issue. He said in the House that National agreed with these rules being rolled over, it just did not agree with the date. Then National changed its mind, but no other party did. Members of the public understand that. National pulled out of genuine attempts to get cross-party agreement.

If we did as National members say and we pulled the rules, we would end up with exactly the same chaos as we had previously. Everybody agreed to these rules. That is why Bill English put out his Parliamentary Service - funded pledge card in 2002. It did not do him any good. But under that party’s so-called morals he should still pay back that money—same pledge card, same rules, same funding. Why has the National Party not paid back the money that it owes? It owes it to the public of New Zealand, and it continues to use it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The Minister Ruth Dyson raised an interesting question. She said that surely we must be able to communicate with our constituents. The National Party does not disagree with that proposition. But the real issue, and what really gets under the skin of the National Party, is the timing of that communication. If one communicates in the election period, then one is breaching the rules that were so very clear for members of Parliament up to the last general election. With that in mind, I want to focus on clause 3(2) and the very interesting word that gets the Labour Party off the hook—“explicitly”. Clause 3(2) states that electioneering is “any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote for a particular political party”.

Labour knew that. Under the old rules, which all members of Parliament understood very well, and, more important, given the statements I made in an earlier debate, understood the spirit of them very well, Labour designed brochures to go out to the people that did not explicitly seek votes for a particular person or a particular party but made it clear that they were seeking the support of the people of New Zealand.

The first brochure, of course, is the one that Mr Ryall mentioned, entitled Working together, sharing a vision, with the Prime Minister’s photo on the front—

Anne Tolley: Whose photo?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON:—the Prime Minister’s, I think—and with seven commitments, which were supposedly introduced by the Government between 1999 and 2005. Those commitments included, and I think the Māori Party members may be interested in this, fair—not just—and final settlements. Labour was going to complete all settlements by 2020. Of course if Dr Cullen is there, we can forget about that.

So what we have is a number of commitments that Labour says it had entered into in the course of its first two terms of office. Any fair-minded person looking at that document in the election period would say that it was nothing other than seeking support for the election of the Labour Party for a third term. Then we had the much discussed “My Commitment to You” document containing the pledge card and “Forward together”—it sounds like a Stalinist march—that it was going to do certain things in its third term, and the people will do them or else Labour will have them shot. By the time of Labour’s fourth term, if it gets one, I am sure it is going to be like that. Labour set out what the pledge card is going to contain.

Again I come back to those words in clause 3(2). Could any honest, decent politician or any political party in this House have any doubt whatsoever that in the election period it is seeking support for the election of a particular person or people, or seeking support for a particular party? So that is why Labour inserted that word “explicitly”. I have an amendment that will deal with that, because I think, as I said in an earlier debating speech, the real issue is whether it is directly or indirectly. If we apply that test, then beyond a shadow of a doubt that kind of correspondence with electors is not on.

The person who understood all this was Mr Michael Smith, who wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer on 14 September 2005 and said, at paragraph 17: “I am aware that there are two streams of communication: MPs with their constituents, and the New Zealand Labour Party soliciting votes. They cannot be conflated. Both have their own legal rules.” But what we have here is a transparent and obvious attempt to get around those rules so that they can, in effect, solicit votes using parliamentary funding. I say to Mr Brown and to the other members of the House from the smaller parties that this is an issue that needs to be confronted. I ask them to focus on the terms of subclause (2) and join the National Party in voting this bill down. This is not pure party politics. This is an important issue. I ask members to consider it in the context of the electoral funding legislation that, as we all know, is designed to shut down political discourse during the regulated period.

Mr Smith knew only too well what it was all about. I have referred to the letter that he wrote a few days before the general election, on 14 September 2005, about the dangers of conflation. But come 5 October 2005, after the election, Mr Smith knew only too well that a certain element of conflation had occurred with the document “My Commitment to You”, the pledge card, and the other brochure that was sent out to every household in New Zealand, using parliamentary funds, and that there was going to be a problem for the Labour Party. The offer that he made to include the cost of the material in the return furnished by the New Zealand Labour Party was unilaterally withdrawn, because on 5 October 2005 he wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer and said that he had had an opportunity to consider the matter—probably “she who must be obeyed” had told him what to write—and “I wish to advise that I withdraw my offer to have the amount expended on the material in question counted as an election expense, since I do not believe it is properly accountable as such.” What is interesting is that when he wrote his letter on 14 September offering to include it as an election expense, he had taken advice from senior counsel on matters relating to the correspondence. But that was certainly not the case when he acted on his own behalf on 5 October and said that he did not believe it was properly accountable as such.

To illustrate the nauseating hypocrisy of Mr Smith, we have a letter that was written on 14 September in which he sets out the concerns that he had if there were to be the same sets of rules to this correspondence. He emphasised the importance of members of Parliament communicating with their constituents. That is fair enough, but do we do this sort of thing in the regulated period or in an election period? No, we do not. The second thing he mentioned was the importance of section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which deals with the right of freedom of expression in New Zealand. Labour invokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it suits it, but when it comes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in relation to electoral finance legislation, Labour snuffs it out as quickly as the brown shirts snuffed out freedom on Kristallnacht.

The third thing Labour does is raise important issues of parliamentary privilege. It said that the Electoral Act has to be interpreted as not interfering with ancient privileges. It sounds good, does it not, until we realise the ancient privileges are all about the right of the Labour Party to send this shabby correspondence to electors in 2005. There is nothing ancient about it, at all. Mr Smith really got things wrong. He relied on senior counsel when he offered to pay it back, and acted unilaterally after the election when he told the Chief Electoral Officer to go and see a taxidermist.

So what we have is utterly unsatisfactory legislation, and the insertion of the word “explicitly” to make it clear beyond peradventure that when next year Labour has another pledge card rort, and when it puts forward another one of these extraordinary documents, 3 years on—and the Prime Minister will not have aged a day because her photo will still be the same, although I must say she looks more like the emperor in Star Wars in it—such as, , what we are going to have is this kind of foul communication being allowed to proceed. That is not good enough.

The issue is: can we communicate with constituents in an election year in this way? The answer is no, we cannot. The rules prior to 2005 were very, very clear. The Auditor-General warned the Labour Party. The Chief Electoral Officer warned the Labour Party. The Labour Party, with malice aforethought, ignored it. It allowed these brochures to be distributed, and now, using a cobbled together majority from members of Parliament who should know better, it is going to introduce legislation that makes it permissible for this sort of nonsense to continue, and that is not good enough.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : What is so disturbing about clause 3 is that it effectively gives the fingers to the independent office of the Auditor-General. Judith Tizard, who has absolutely no respect for independent institutions, who said at the last general election that she and her Labour Party cheated by using public money, against the law, for the use of—

Hon Judith Tizard: What are you doing in your backyard right now?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What members have said—[Interruption] Absolutely! And what is more, for the 17 years that I have been a member of Parliament I have been able to put out a newsletter. What I have not done is try to rort the system. I will oppose—

Hon Judith Tizard: You are rorting it now.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is the Labour Party—[Interruption] Can I say this to the member. Has the Auditor-General ever found that I have breached the rules? Never. Has the Auditor-General found that Judith Tizard breached the rules?

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, so I say to Judith Tizard that she is a cheat and a disgrace. She and her political party are trying to force through legislation that attempts to override the Auditor-General.

I ask Judith Tizard to read what the New Zealand Herald and the have said about her party. The said that the Labour Party has not worked out the difference between what is good for democracy and what is good for the Labour Party. The said that this is a rort, and that democracy is under attack from the likes of Trevor Mallard and this Labour Party, which has no respect.

I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair. Clause 3 of this bill defines electioneering. But, somewhat strangely, another bill before the House has a completely different definition of electioneering. My question for the Minister asks how he can justify there being one definition for politicians and a different definition for the normal members of the public out there. There is a common, basic, root value of one law for all, yet in this bill there is one set of laws for politicians and another for outsiders.

I challenge Peter Brown: how does he excuse a definition of electioneering in this bill that is completely at odds with the definition of electioneering in another bill? [Interruption] Well, Lesley Soper—can she explain—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lesley Soper. I thought the word “electioneering” would have a single definition, and I ask members opposite how they can justify that sort of double standard. Will Lesley Soper explain why we have two different definitions for electioneering? There is only one reason: Lesley Soper, Judith Tizard, and their colleagues know that the people of New Zealand have lost faith in them, and they know that the only way they can hang on to power with their fingernails is to cheat and to erode the democratic, proper rules under which we have elections. And it is a total disgrace.

I point out the way in which the effect of this law will overrule the settled law arising from the Reg Boorman case. We all remember the occasion when Reg Boorman cheated under another Labour Government and was thrown out of this Parliament for rorting the law. But this bill makes legal what Reg Boorman did. That is right. Reg Boorman was found guilty of committing a corrupt practice. And every Labour MP wants to change the law so that every one of them can commit a corrupt practice. But National says that that is wrong. You see, the combination—

Russell Fairbrother: Contempt’s pretty wrong, too.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That member thinks that stuffing around with democracy is something not to feel passionate about; I do feel passionate about it.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : This is a very simple bill, but I find it fascinating that this bill, which National’s leader in the House agreed to, has been twisted by the Opposition, whose members seem so concerned about democracy. But, actually, what they cannot bear is losing. They lost the last election in spite of the fact that they threw millions of dollars—millions of dollars, before the time they thought the actual campaign period was—at it and they still lost. They colluded with the Exclusive Brethren to try to rort the system. It has been fascinating to hear the number of National people who have said over the last 18 months “I didn’t come into Parliament to waste my time in Opposition.” They thought they had bought the last election, and they are really upset that they did not succeed in doing that. Now they want to ensure they can buy the next election, by opposing this legislation, when all this legislation does is enable parliamentarians to do their job.

It is a very simple bill. It has nothing to do with the hysteria we have had from the member for Nelson, who is one of the people in this Chamber who knows better what it is like to be on the wrong side of a court. He understands what it is like to break the law. Most of us do not, because most of us, as members of Parliament, do our damnedest to observe the law. That is what I have always done, since 1990 when I was first elected. I am proud to be part of a Government that was elected by ordinary New Zealanders, decent people who want a future for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Bunch of cheats—corrupt cheats.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: And the National Party shouts “corrupt cheats” about those New Zealanders who are decent human beings who just want a future. They do not want their futures bought and usurped.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Although the member has responded, I certainly take offence at the comment made by Dr Nick Smith and ask for it to be withdrawn.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If Dr Smith would withdraw it, please.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: And what happens when people think they have bought something fair and square, as the National Party thought it had bought the last election? They get upset and resort to personal abuse. Well, we have had a lot of personal abuse in this House today. I am appalled that National members are so unsure of their own arguments that they choose to use what outside this House would be slander—that outside this House would be called words we cannot use in this House.

I am delighted to support this bill, which has the support of a majority of Parliament. And rather than shrieking personal abuse, I suggest that members opposite get on with being decent MPs, at which point they may start to regain some of the respect they have lost from even their own supporters.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : We have just heard from the Hon Judith Tizard, who was the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues until the Prime Minister took that role away—much, I must say, to the relief of Auckland. That Minister said that National Party members had said they did not come into Parliament to waste their time in Opposition. But I say that that member came into Parliament so that she could waste her time in Government; nobody has yet worked out what it is that she does for her money.

What is very interesting about clause 3 of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is that it is all about legitimising the illegitimate. This Government is so desperate to stay in power that it is going to change the rules. The reason it is changing the rules is that that will stop ordinary New Zealanders from exercising their right to say what they think about their politics. We are here as representatives of every New Zealander—every single New Zealander has the right to have a view about politics. And this Government, and its toadies in New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future, are absolutely dedicated to doing anything to stop ordinary New Zealanders saying that they have had enough of this Government and that they want to get rid of it.

Certainly, the Government wants to stop anybody who is not a member of Parliament from electioneering in the sort of way that this Government has done time and time again. All these sorts of brochures I am holding up, and that my colleagues have held up, are fine at this time of the year. But they are not OK in an election period, which is what this Government is trying to change. It is trying to extend the electioneering period so that people will be able to use Government funding to put out electioneering brochures right up to the day of the election. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. New Zealanders say constantly now that they do not want to have their democracy taken apart because of the desire of the members of this Government never to have to get out into the real workforce. The fact is that most of them are unemployable anywhere else, and the only one who can get a job—Steve Maharey—is already off. That says that this Government will do anything to stay in power, because most of its members are unemployable anywhere else. There are simply not enough unions to take them back. So this bill is one of the things that we will fight against.

One of the things that I thought was most interesting today was to hear from the Hon David Cunliffe. He is also known as “Captain Cunliffe” now, because he is in charge of everything, and he is running the show. That is what he has told us. He told us today that this is all about the fact that the Labour Government is going to deliver. Well, the people of New Zealand are going to deliver something to Labour and its toady mates. They are going to deliver them the message that they want to be able to exercise their rights to be involved in politics. We are here as representatives of the people; the people are not actually here for us—[Interruption]—I say to Ms Soper. It is quite the opposite. We are here for them. Just because Ms Soper is not confident about getting back again into Parliament, that is no reason at all why the people of New Zealand should have their democracy under attack, as rightly shown in the The fact is that all this Government wants to do is to attack the media. All it is doing now is saying that the media is just a Tory institution. Well, there are not many National MPs here who feel that the has ever been a Tory institution in their lifetime. It is quite the opposite.

One of the most appalling things—

Lesley Soper: Disgusting!

JUDITH COLLINS: What Ms Soper says is absolutely right. She says it is disgusting, and she is right. She is absolutely right. It is disgusting that this Government is trying to push this bill through in this form, and it is being supported by the very people we all see out on the hustings talking about transparency and the Kiwi way. This is when we have public funding paying for someone purporting to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is not “Labour. Forward”; it is “Labour. Backward.” That is the only way Ms Soper and her friends are going to go.

Lesley Soper: They’re better off with Labour, and you know it.

JUDITH COLLINS: And she is absolutely right—people are better off with National. I thank Ms Soper; I thank her so much.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I will start my call by quoting from the New Zealand Herald: “When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.” [] Democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power—

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to do this to my colleague, but is it appropriate for the Minister in the chair, Mr Mallard, with a microphone, to be barracking a member who is on her feet? I do not believe that is in order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Except on rare occasions, the Minister is not meant to take part in the debate, at all.

Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s supposed to be at his anger management course.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Any comments like that may be one of those rare occasions. We will start again with Kate Wilkinson.

KATE WILKINSON: I will repeat what the New Zealand Herald said, because I think it said it well on Monday—

Russell Fairbrother: Why don’t you think for yourself?

KATE WILKINSON: It is worth having it recorded in Hansard, I say to Mr Fairbrother, because I think it is important to the democracy of our country. It is important that people have confidence in the democracy of our country and in our Parliament, and I think that the people of New Zealand are very rapidly losing that confidence. The states: “Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties, it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage”—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I suggest the member just tables the document rather than read it all out.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order, Minister.

KATE WILKINSON: I say to the Minister that if I want him to write my speeches I will ask him to do so, but he should not hold his breath.

“Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour. Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties, it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage—a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election. The Clark Government’s refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information. Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again … The interests of any healthy democracy lie in its unrestricted debate, not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech. If these bills pass, they will be Labour’s epitaph.”

That is what the New Zealand Herald said on Monday, and it is worth recording in , because this attempt is a disgrace. This is not democracy. This is not the Parliament that our people have elected us to represent them at and to be part of. This is not a Parliament that the people of New Zealand can have confidence in.

We have in this clause 3 an exclusion relating to electioneering. It excludes communications that explicitly seek support for the election of a particular person, or explicitly seek support for the casting of a party vote, or explicitly encourage a person to become a member of a political party, or explicitly solicit subscriptions or other financial support. This brochure I am holding does not say, in effect, “parliamentary advertising needs to say to vote for party X, join party X, or give money to party X” before it would be considered electioneering. This brochure, Healthy, Wealthy and Wise, does not say that. That is paid for by the taxpayer. This one, , is paid for by the taxpayer. I do not know what this next brochure says, but it is paid for by the taxpayer. It is blatant; it is paid for by the taxpayer. Here is another brochure, which is also paid for by the taxpayer, as is this one. This is one rule for MPs and another rule for the public, and that is abhorrent—one rule for MPs and another rule for the public.

Again, because I want it recorded in Hansard, I quote from what the says. It says it better than I can say it. If members want to know why I want to quote it, it is because the uses the words better. But I want it in . I think it needs to be recorded there. The states: “It seems that Labour and its support parties … have found a way to legitimise election-period spending through their taxpayer-funded parliamentary budgets. Add such spending to the expensive ad campaigns to allegedly educate the public on policies like KiwiSaver or Working for Families, and next year Labour, in particular, will be bleeding a lucrative vein of taxpayer-funded publicity. The public has been told that the ‘One Law for MPs Bill’ is only temporary. But so what?”, the says. “The period it covers is the only time that counts—right through election year. And there is nothing to stop the next government simply renewing it—temporarily, of course. The public deserve better. Not only because the public are paying for it, but because it is unfair for incumbent MPs to have a legalised advantage and because, in election year, there should be a level of robust participation that the Electoral Finance Bill will inhibit. The bill’s provisions are a shame and a shambles and New Zealand’s democracy will be poorer if they are passed.”

That is what the Listener said. I fear for our democracy when we have laws that are as shameful, as invidious, and as disgraceful as this one, and I fear that confidence in our Parliament and in our democracy is being eroded and that it will take a long, long time to recover. This is a disgrace.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson—

Hon Maurice Williamson: We don’t want no foreigners here!

PETER BROWN: I thank the member for the welcome! The other day I was called corrupt by the National Party, but today the chief whip for the National Party said that I am a man of integrity. How does one get common sense out of that?

The Hon Nick Smith asked an interesting question. I have taken my time and I want to address it. I have sat and listened to the National members, and Kate Wilkinson touched on it—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but I think that a call for immigrants to go home, which came from my left, is something this Parliament should not tolerate. I ask that that remark be withdrawn and apologised for.

Anne Tolley: I did hear my colleague say “Go home”, but there was no mention of immigrants. I think that slur has been deliberately put in by the Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: To make it absolutely clear, the remark followed a false English accent from Mr Williamson. It was part of the same exchange. It was disgraceful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am afraid that I did not hear it.

PETER BROWN: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I just want to tell the honourable members over there that if they were referring to me, I have a certificate of citizenship signed by a former National Minister. I am a New Zealander by choice. They are New Zealanders by accident.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a further point of order. I think that Mr Bennett should actually tell the Committee that it was he who said it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is up to the member.

PETER BROWN: I want to make a serious point here because I think the Hon Nick Smith endeavoured to make a serious point. He was talking about two definitions of electioneering, the one in this document and the one that will come back to the House in the Electoral Finance Bill. I do not know what that definition will be when it comes back, but it will be quite different from this one. I say to members that those two definitions work in tandem. They are compatible. This definition applies specifically to MPs and what we can do, or, perhaps more appropriately, what we cannot do. If we seek membership, if we seek money, or if we seek votes, we are electioneering and we are in breach of this legislation. That applies to MPs. But for MPs who are also candidates, the new definition that is to come back in the Electoral Finance Bill will also apply to them, equally as it applies to a candidate who is currently working anywhere. In other words, if as individuals we stand in the next election as candidates and we are MPs, the two definitions will apply to us. They are not to be regarded as being in conflict. They are compatible. They work in tandem. It is as simple as that. I am on public record as saying that we need this bill—

Anne Tolley: Why do we need it?

PETER BROWN: Because the Auditor-General, in his wisdom, ruled documents such as this one here out of order.

Anne Tolley: That’s right. It broke the rules.

PETER BROWN: It did not. The Auditor-General deemed that it broke the rules. But if I put this through the rules we have now and the Speaker’s directions, it would be OK. I invite the National chief whip to put it through—

Anne Tolley: It broke the rules.

PETER BROWN: It was OK in 2002; a similar type of thing was OK in 1999; and it was OK in 2005 by the rules we had then. But the Auditor-General said that it broke the rules. The rules in the Speaker’s directions that several MPs, including two from the National Party, have sat for hours and hours to consider and have agreed upon are very much reflected in this bill. New Zealand First will not take a chance on the Auditor-General’s judgment. Under this bill we are protected. The Auditor-General got it wrong in 2005 and he could get it wrong again now. We need this legislation to protect us from the Auditor-General’s wisdom.

Bob Clarkson: I got it right.

PETER BROWN: I am not going there.

I listened to Tony Ryall whilst the honourable Minister Ruth Dyson was speaking. He was interjecting quite vocally and saying that these rules should not apply during an election period. That is the whole purpose of the bill. Its whole purpose is to say what MPs can or cannot do during an election period. That is the whole point of it. I unashamedly tell members that New Zealand First members will go out and say what we expect to achieve politically—what we stand for. By doing that, we came up with this document. It is the confidence and supply agreement we have with these folk over here. What did we achieve?

Judith Collins: Baubles!

PETER BROWN: We achieved 1,000 more police. Is that a bauble? We achieved free health-care for under 6-year-olds. We achieved the golden age card for senior citizens. Are they baubles? [Interruption] They love it.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak in support of—

Hon Trevor Mallard: We’ll get the closure after this one.

ALLAN PEACHEY: —we will come to the member—National’s opposition to this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Surely the Government could have come up with a more accurate title than that.

Lesley Soper: We’re not talking about the title. We’re on clause 3.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Listen to those Government members. They have nothing to say.

When I look at clause 3, which we are debating at the moment, I see provisions to undermine democracy in this country. That is what this is all about. It is one more insidious socialist step to undermine democracy in New Zealand. I am proud to be on this side of the Chamber and to be contributing to the debate in defence of the fine New Zealand democratic tradition.

We have to ask this question: why did Labour not declare the pledge card? Every New Zealander knows the answer. There are 850,000 reasons, and they are called dollars—taxpayers’ dollars. When I look at the material I have here, I see all this red stuff. Just by coincidence the one on the top of my pile happens to be in the name of the Minister in the chair—“Trevor Mallard, MP for Hutt South, Reports”. I am given to reflect—

Hon Tony Ryall: Should that go out close to the election?

ALLAN PEACHEY: What I am worried about, I say to Mr Ryall, is that it will go into somebody’s letterbox in Hutt South and a child coming home from school will, as children do, rush to the letterbox, get the mail, and see this document. That child will not think “Paid for by my parents.”; he or she will think “Oh, my God, it must be Halloween.” The tragedy of that is that the Government wants this sort of stuff paid for by that child’s parents—the taxpayer. Nobody who believes in the fundamental tenets of democracy will believe that that should happen. Mr Clarkson can have the document; I never want to see it again.

This bill is all about distorting the role of the democratic process at election time. I suggest to this Committee that those of us who are privileged to be members of Parliament have an extra responsibility, particularly at election time, to ensure that those who wish to put up their names in opposition to us have as fair a crack at the battle—

Hon Judith Tizard: Ha, ha!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Listen to the member for Auckland Central cackling and laughing. That is the level of her respect for democracy. That is her contempt for the people of New Zealand and her contempt for those who would seek to offer their names in opposition to her. I am delighted to be able to tell the Committee that in next year’s election that member will be held accountable by the people of Auckland Central and she will be gone, as will many of her colleagues.

Now I will get back to the important point I was making. It is a simple, fundamental tenet of democracy that those who would seek to challenge us for our seats are entitled to a fair crack. Next year they should not have to go into an election campaign knowing that they are running against an incumbent member of Parliament who has access to taxpayers’ money to pay for that sort of stuff. That is what the Government is attempting to do with this legislation.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : Peter Brown let the cat out of the bag when he said we need this bill to protect us from the Auditor-General. That is what he said. That was the cheek of his comment. If an average member of the public cheats on the taxpayers’ money, it is the Auditor-General who catches that person out. If an official who works in a school uses the school’s money for a purpose other than educating kids, it is the Auditor-General who gives that person the ping. If a doctor who works in a hospital does not use the public money, as intended, for health, that person gets pinged by the Auditor-General. But the Labour Party and its mates like Peter Brown say: “No, not those rules for us. We want to be able to protect ourselves from the Auditor-General looking into the ways in which we wish to rort public money.”

Just to show how extensive the contest is, I ask members to remember that the public money that is voted each year is $17 million. The amount of money that a party is able to use legally is only $2.5 million. So what members opposite seek to do is to use public money in a way that has never lawfully been previously allowed and, at the same time, shut down people using their own money. It is a true disgrace and an attack on democracy. If we lived in a country like the United States, which has a constitution, this measure would get overruled in terms of the principles of free speech. If we lived in a country like Australia or the United Kingdom, we would have the check of an upper Chamber. In New Zealand we do not have that. That is what saddens me so much—Labour members of this Committee are so prepared to abuse our fragile democracy by simply abusing the powers of this bill to try to rort the next election.

I also want to respond to the bizarre point from Peter Brown that somehow he, in his mind, can justify two different definitions of electioneering. Let us put it plainly. This bill says that electioneering is only that which explicitly seeks support—that which explicitly seeks support for a vote. Then we have this other bill, the Electoral Finance Bill, which says: “No, no, if anybody expresses any opinion on any issue at all, it is electioneering.” I ask Mr Brown why that difference in definition is so significant. It is significant because it says that when we stand, hand on heart, and say: “Oh, we won’t use parliamentary money for electioneering.”, we can say absolutely everything bar “vote”. As long as we do not use the word “vote” we can rort the public purse for all it is worth.

But it is even worse than that. We have a limit that has been considered by all parties of this Parliament to be fair for yonks, and that is that we are to spend only $20,000 in the last 3 months of a campaign. But there is a sneaky little clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that says that publicly funded ads will now be exempt. Let us be honest about what that means. In my case, for example, that means that I get a constituency allowance of $65,000 under the bulk-funding system. I can spend all of that in the last month of the campaign, but anybody who wants to stand against me as MP for Nelson is restricted to $20,000.

Labour members say that that is a fair contest. I say that that is garbage. I say that that is a rort, and I cannot believe that those in the Green Party, in New Zealand First, and in Labour can somehow pretend that passing a law of that sort sets up a fair contest to hold the privileged position of being a member of this House. The truth is that they are undermining this valuable democratic institution. It is only by a fair contest for the privileged seats in this House that we can truly say we have a democracy. What they are doing with this bill is turning this Parliament into a closed shop. They want to make it too hard for those who would challenge, because they want to maintain a monopoly on Government, and it is wrong.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : I am pleased to be able to take a call, because I would like to speak on the number of significant amendments being put forward by National Party members in this Committee. I want to support the amendment from Anne Tolley that will put further restrictions on what parties can do in the election period, and will make sure that the rules are the same as in the electoral finance legislation. If the Government is so keen on the Electoral Finance Bill then it should vote for Anne Tolley’s amendment.

I also want to support Chris Finlayson’s amendments, which will make it clear that whether or not it is explicit that a party is seeking support through its printed material, it is an election expense. That is the problem with this bill, together with the Electoral Finance Bill.

The red printing presses have been running overtime. Here they are—one after the other—taxpayer-funded brochures being sent out all around the country at the taxpayers’ expense, together with this photo of a woman who purports to look like the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The brochures have been put out all around the country. They are paid for by taxpayers’ money, and they are fine this year. The brochures are fine this year, but where this bill oversteps the mark, as Gerry Brownlee told the Government, is that a party should not be allowed to put them out in the months before an election. That is what Gerry Brownlee and the National Party members have said.

I say to the Labour Party members that they should put out brochures in the non-election period but they should not be allowed to do it in the election period. In the weeks before the election, they should not be able to put out brochures including the phrases “thousand-dollar savings”, “kick-start”, “more support for families”, “lower tax”, and “support for patients” and say that that is not electioneering. Of course it is electioneering if the material is put out in the weeks before an election.

It is the same for the pamphlet Supporting Kiwi Business. A party should not be allowed to put that out before an election, and that is what this bill allows. It states that this sort of material, which is fine in a non-election period, should not go out in an election period and that if it does go out in an election period then it should be counted as an election expense. If a Labour Party candidate who is not a member of Parliament puts this out in the weeks before an election, it is an election expense and it counts. But if a Labour MP puts this material out in the weeks before an election, it is an MP’s expenditure and does not count. That is not right.

I say to the Government that it is not too late. What has happened in this Parliament in the whole time I and other members have been here is that this sort of electoral-related legislation is always done on a bipartisan or multiparty basis. The only thing that the two big parties ever used to disagree on was when the electoral roll should close. National always said a month before the election, and Labour said on the day before the election. We gave in on that in the end. We have been supporting that provision for some years now.

The two main parties agreed on virtually everything for this reason: we cannot have the rules change every election depending on who wins. That is what Labour is inviting future Parliaments to do—the majority will jackboot over the minority to favour the majority. That is what the Government and its cronies are doing. They are inviting future Parliaments to change the rules every election to suit whoever is in power. The Ministers do not mind. When they lose in 2008 they are out in 2011. It is the Labour Party people who are standing in 2011 who should be standing up to their leaders and saying: “Look, what we’re doing to them may be done to us in 3 years’ time.”

That is why we have always had the rule in Parliament that when it comes to important electoral legislation or spending rules, we basically get agreement between the two main parties, because it is unhealthy for the rules to change every election. That is why the National Party says it is not too late to look back and change, and let us move forward together with a number of rules that suit New Zealand. The Government should not make a fool of itself and invite retaliation from future Parliaments.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : Parliament must amend the expiry date of this bill. It must amend the expiry date of this bill for this very reason. This legislation cannot apply in the way that it does in the period of the run-up to the next election. It cannot apply. It is simply unfair that if the Labour candidate for a seat who is not a member of Parliament puts out material such as this pamphlet from the red-hot printing presses, then it is an election expense. It is an election expense according to the law and according to this bill.

Hon Member: Or a New Zealand First member.

Hon TONY RYALL: Or if a New Zealand First candidate puts this sort of material out. But if a member of Parliament puts out this material, then he or she is given immunity by this legislation. He or she is given immunity from being caught by the election finance rules.

Hon Member: Can’t be right.

Hon TONY RYALL: That is absolutely true. This bill contains a provision that states that this material, when given out by an MP in the weeks before the election, is not electioneering, but that if it is given out by a party candidate who is not in Parliament, then it would be regarded as electioneering.

That is what is simply wrong with this bill. This bill states that if one is a member of Parliament, then one has a different set of rules for one’s spending in an election year from those for everyone else’s. That is not right. That is Robert Mugabe at his best. It is Robert Mugabe at his best, because in Zimbabwe there are special rules for the governing party and different rules for the Opposition. We are on the fast track to having that situation here.

That is why I support the amendments to this expiry date. What I think should happen is that this law should expire before the election. This bill should be replaced by one that all parties agree on, and it should state that members of Parliament who use taxpayers’ money to send out pledge cards and other electioneering material will be caught by the electioneering legislation. It is as simple as that. The Labour Party pledge card will be legalised under this bill, and the Labour Party will be able to repeat that exercise with impunity and immunity under this legislation. That is simply wrong.

Let us rehearse what National is saying here: let us have the rules that applied before the 2005 general election, because those rules were clear. They stated that if a party spent taxpayers’ money for electioneering purposes, then that money should be refunded and that expenditure should be included within that party’s spending limit. That is what was stated, and it was simple. Who could not understand that? Well, 800,000 reasons point to the Labour Party, which was warned 3 weeks before the election that its pledge card would be included as election expenditure. That letter was sent by the Chief Electoral Officer at the time, David Henry, to the Labour Party’s general secretary, Mike Smith, and Mike Smith, in the remaining 3 weeks, approved close to $1.5 million of election spending. He had every opportunity to obey the law and the advice he had been given by the Chief Electoral Officer, so what did he do? What did the Labour Party do? The Labour Party wrote and said that it would incorporate that money in its spending return.

History shows that Labour did not do that. Labour did not include it in its spending return. The Auditor-General found that its spending was illegal, and that it stole the money from the taxpayers of New Zealand, and subsequently it stole the election. If the National Party had been able to spend as much money as the Labour Party did at the last election—we conservatively estimate that the Labour Party and the unions spent probably from $1.5 million to $2 million in support of Labour’s election campaign—a different Government would be running the country today. If National had been able to spend the $3.2 million that Labour spent in the last election campaign, then a different Government would be running this country today. Labour stole taxpayers’ money and it stole the election.

This Government is an illegitimate Government, and this bill seeks to legitimise its overspending and to say to the people of New Zealand that what it did was right.

• Progress to be reported presently.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, no progress on the Building Amendment Bill, no progress on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, and no progress on the Human Tissue Bill.

• Report adopted.