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

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.

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.

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.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.