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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, Working together, sharing a vision, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 Dominion Post have said about her party. The Dominion Post 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 New Zealand Herald 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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 New Zealand Herald. 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 New Zealand Herald has ever been a Tory institution in their lifetime. It is quite the opposite.

One of the most appalling things—

💬 Lesley Soper: Disgusting!

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.

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

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.” [Interruption] 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.

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?

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 New Zealand Herald 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.

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 Hansard, 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, Trevor Mallard, MP for Hutt South, Reports, 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 Listener 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 Listener uses the words better. But I want it in Hansard. I think it needs to be recorded there. The Listener 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 Listener 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.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson—

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak in support of—

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

—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.

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?

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!

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.