Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning ofFunding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill

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. What About Securing Your Future? 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 World-Class Education? 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. Enhanced KiwiSaver: Investment for a Sustainable Future—

💬 Hon Member: Who’s that?

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, “My Commitment to You”, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chairperson—

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

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 Working together, sharing a vision, 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 “My Commitment to You”, 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 Working together, sharing a vision: Labour’s policies for the future. 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!”.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.